Utilization Of Agricultural Residues As Animal Feeds For .
The Sustainable World409Utilization of agricultural residues as animalfeeds for fattening sheep in Saudi ArabiaH. Al Tonobey & H. M. El ShaerAl Khalidiah Farm –Tebrak, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaAbstractDue to diversified agricultural activities in Al Khalidiah Farm, SA (2500hectares), more than 7000 ton/year of different agricultural residues (AGR) areproduced annually. The study consisted of two trials; the first one aimed toevaluate the chemical composition and nutritive value of some selected AGR tobe used as animal feeds and to evaluate the effect of dehydration treatments ontheir chemical and microbiological analysis. The second trial was conducted toinvestigate the impact of feeding combinations of five feed ingredients madefrom the tested agriculture residues on the performance of fattened sheep lambs.During the first trial, seven types of AGR (one ton each) were collected namely:1- Landscape mowing grasses (LMG), 2- Mixed ornamental plants residues(MOPR) , 3- Olive trees pruning (OTP), 4- Citrus tree pruning (CTP), 5- Datetrees pruning(DTP), 6- Horse stable grasses residues (HSGR) and 7- Greenhouses by-products (GHBP). These AGR were air-dried, ground and tested forpreliminary chemical composition and nutritive value. Five tons from each ofnew AGR materials were air –dried, ground then heated in a drying drum at 90 Cfor 15 minutes. Five samples were taken, randomly, from each air- dried materialand after being heated to evaluate the impact of heating on the chemical analysesand microbiological parameters of the tested materials. During the second trial,five rations from the tested AGR ingredients were formulated and offered to fiftyweaned lambs (2 month- old and averaged 17.0 0.73 Kg body weight) dividedrandomly in five groups (10 lambs each) in a group feeding system for a 9-weekfattening period. The rations were offered ad libitum and consisted of: 1- LMG,2- MOPR, 3- HSGR, 4- A mixture of olive tree pruning mixed with orange fruitsby-products (OTPOF) for the four groups: R1, R2, R3, R4, respectively whilethe control group (R5) was offered Alfalfa hay. All groups were offered theConcentrate Feed Mixtures (CFM) at 60% of the total ration while roughageswere offered at 40%. Animals were weighed at the beginning of the experimentWIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 142, 2010 WIT Presswww.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)doi:10.2495/SW100381
410 The Sustainable Worldand biweekly. Feeding allowances were adjusted biweekly according to bodyweight changes. Voluntary feed intake, feed conversion and feeding costs weredetermined. Representative samples of the feed ingredients were tested forchemical, pathogens and microbiological analysis.Results of the first trial indicated that all AGR feed ingredients appeared to benutritious since they contained enough concentration of nutrients to cover animalnutritional requirements. Crude protein content varied among the feedingredients and ranged from 6.53% (CTP) to 19.77% (LMG). Heating treatment,generally, did not affect (P 0.05) all nutrients concentration nor microbiologicalparameters of all tested feed ingredients. Results of the second trial showed thatanimals fed R2 followed by R1 recorded the highest average daily gain of 283and 280 g/day, respectively as a reflection of their high feed intakes. Feed costsof rations R1 and R2 were comparable and showed the lowest feed costs per onekilogram gain (SR 1.35 and 1.36, respectively) while the control ration (R5)recorded the highest feed cost (SR 2.23). It is shown that lambs of R3 were moreefficient in feed conversion (3.52 gm DM/gm gain) than the other tested rations.It could be concluded that using AGR in feeding animals is economic and has apositive impact on productive performance feeding costs of fattened lambs.Keywords: sheep, fattening, intake, feed efficiency, agricultural residues,environment, heating treatments, chemical composition.1 IntroductionOver the last few years, Saudi Arabia (2,150,000 sq km) has realized theadvantages of agricultural residues (AGR) on the economy, industry andenvironment. With the rapid increase in cultivation of sizable lands in SaudiArabia (SA) as well as animal feeds and fertilizer costs [1]. There has been arapid realization that significant environmental and financial benefits can beachieved through proper utilization of AGR. Presently, there are more than 1.6million tons of AGR produced annually in the Kingdom, approximately 28% ofwhich comes mainly from date palm in addition to other tree crops [2]. Certainprivate agricultural companies sensed the importance of AGR and have alreadystarted new ventures to exploit these materials on sustainable basis. Forinstances, due to diversified agricultural activities in Al Khalidiah Farm (as oneof the pioneer model farms, 2500 ha. in SA), around 7000 ton/year of differentAGR are produced annually. On the other hands, the deficiency of animal feedsin SA reaches more transforming AGR into animal feedstuffs would help a greatdeal in overcoming this deficiency [1]. Most AGR have high contents of fiberand not easily to be digested in addition to low content of crude protein [3, 4]. Toimprove the quality and utilization of such materials by animals, several physicaland mechanical methods should be applied such as: chopping, shredding,grinding, heating [5, 6]. Some mechanical methods or dehydration processeshave proved to improve feed digestibility and efficiency for ruminants [3, 7, 8].The study was conducted to investigate the impact of fattening weaned sheeplambs on five non-conventional feed ingredients made from the available AGRat Al Khalidiah Farm, Saudi Arabia. Feed costs in comparison with theWIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 142, 2010 WIT Presswww.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
The Sustainable World411traditional feed ingredients (based on alfalfa and Concentrate feed mixture) wasalso determined.2 Materials and methodsThe study was conducted at Al Khalidiah Farm (120 km west of Riyadh) duringsummer 2009. It consisted of two trials. The first trial aimed to collect, identifythe proper organic materials then to evaluate the chemical and microbiologicalanalysis of the selected materials affected by dehydration processes. The secondtrial was conducted to evaluate the voluntary feed intake and feed efficiency ofthe formulated fattened rations based on AGR fed to Nagdi sheep during a 9week fattening period.2.1 The first trialAround one tone from each of seven agriculture residues types was collected forpreliminary chemical analyses and nutritive value to be used later as animal feedingredients in fattened rations formulation. The main selected AGR ingredientswere as follows: 1- Landscape mowing grasses (LMG), 2- Mixed ornamentalplants residues (MOPR, the seasonal flowering plants for ornamental), 3- Citrustree pruning (CTP), 4- Olive trees pruning (OTP), 5- Olive trees pruning - orangefruits (OTPOF), 6- Green houses by- products (GHBP) and 7- Horse-stablegrasses residues (HSGR). Each material was air-dried separately, and thenchopped and ground (8 mm) and three composite samples were collected fromeach material and kept for the chemical composition analyses and nutritive valuedetermination. Around five tons from each material were collected again,chopped and ground (8 mm) and air-dried then heated into a drying drum at 900Cfor 10 minutes. Five samples were taken, randomly, from each air-dried feedmaterials before and after being heated to evaluate the impact of heating on thechemical analysis and microbiological parameters of tested materials.2.2 The second trialFive fattening rations were formulated based on the tested AGR to be offered forfive equal numbers groups of 2-month old weaned Nagdi sheep lambs (10animals / group) averaged 17.0 0.73 Kg body weight. The rations (R1, R2, R3and R4) were formulated from the following agriculture residues feedingredients: 1. LMG, 2. MOPR, 3. HSGR and 4. OTPOF. The control group(R5) was fed on alfalfa hay. The formulated rations are illustrated in Table 1. Allanimal groups were offered the Concentrate Feed Mixtures (CFM) as an energysupplementary feeding (Metabolizable energy 5.54 MJ/Kg DM). The CFMconsisted of 30% cotton seed cake, 47% yellow corn, 20% wheat bran, 2%limestone and 1% common salt. The fattening diets were given to animals at60% concentrates (CFM) to 40% roughage ratio.WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 142, 2010 WIT Presswww.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
412 The Sustainable WorldTable 1:Experimental rations formulation.Feed ingredientsRoughages:1. Landscape mowing grasses (LMG),%2.Mixed ornamental plants residues (MOPR),%3. Horse- stable grasses residues (HSGR),%4. Olive trees pruning - orange fruits (OTPOF),%5. Alfalfa Hay,%Crude protein (CP) ,% of roughagesME *(MJ/Kg DM) of 8406.520.8400.8220.8040.8090.76Concentrate Feed Mixture (CFM),%6060606060Total crude protein of ration (CP) ,%*Total ME of ration(MJ/Kg 092*Metabolizable energyAll dietary roughages were offered to animals ad libtum during the fatteningtrial. The amounts of feed offered and refused were recorded to calculate theactual voluntary daily intake for each animal group. Animals were individuallyweighed at the beginning of the experiment and every other week. Feedingallowances were adjusted biweekly according to body weight changes for lambsduring the fattening period. All animals were allowed to drink fresh water freechoice. Daily offered feeds, daily feeds refusals, bi-weekly live body weightchanges, feed costs and feed efficiency of fattened animals fed the formulatedrations were measured and recorded for each animal group.The representative samples of all feed ingredients were tested for proximatechemical analysis [9] and microbiological analysis which included total viablebacterial counts (cfu/g), molds and yeasts counts (cfu/g), total coliform(MPN/100g), faecal coliform (MPN/100g), salmonella detection (cfu/g) andmycotoxins detection [10, 11]. Data were subjected to the statistical analysissystem according to SAS [12]. Differences in mean values among groups werecompared by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test [13].3 Results and Discussion3.1 First trial3.1.1 Chemical composition and nutritive values of the tested agricultureresiduesData on the chemical composition and metabolizable energy (ME) content(MJ/Kg dry matter) of the selected feed ingredients based on AGR namely1- LMG, 2- MOPR, 3- CTP, 4- OTP, 5- OTPOF ,6- GHBP and 7- HSGR aresummarized, on overall averages, in Table 2.WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 142, 2010 WIT Presswww.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
The Sustainable WorldTable 2:413Chemical composition (%, on dry matter basis) and metabolizableenergy*(MJ/Kg dry matter) of the selected AGR.Feed materialsDMOMCPCFEEASHNFEMELandscape mowing grasses (LMG)93.2887.6018.624.001.5912.4043.412.10Mixed ornamental plants residues (MOPR)94.3884.3913.4723.121.2815.6146.521.91Citrus trees pruning (CTP)96.2986.866.5337.051.0013.1442.281.71Olive trees pruning (OTP)90.4491.1010.8821.421.678.9057.132.07Olive trees pruning - orange fruits (OTPOF)92.0092.558.7827.701.607.4554.472.01Green houses by- products GHBP)95.7489.0012.1034.701.2511.0040.951.90Horse- stable grasses residues (HSGR)95.8589.8012.0033.671.4010.2042.731.93*ME is calculated [14]DM: dry matter; OM: organic matter; CP: crude protein: CF: crude fiber: EE:ether extracts: NFE: nitrogen free extracts: ME: metabolizable energy.CTP could be considered as a poor dietary roughage due to its low level ofCP (6.53%) and metabolizable energy (ME) with high crude fiber (37.05%) thatmight reduce its nutritive value, digestion and utilization [5, 6]. On the otherhands, LMG appeared to be very nutr
of the pioneer model farms, 2500 ha. in SA), around 7000 ton/year of different AGR are produced annually. On the other hands, the deficiency of animal feeds in SA reaches more transforming AGR into animal feedstuffs would help a great deal in overcoming
over the 11 sets of partner proteins, were as follows: binding residues, 42 6%; nonbinding residues 20 3%; nonbinding buried residues 26 5%; and nonbinding surface residues 16 3% . The higher sequence identity of the binding residues compared to the other sets of residues provides evidence that these observed
residues is made up of agriculture (74%) and forest (22%). The bioenergy potential of crop straw is equal to that of 201 million tons of standard coal (48.98%), followed by for-estry residue (22%) and agricultural processing residues (12%), revealing that agricultural and forest residues have great potential for energy, chemical, and material .
Biomass Type ge eat g Value (MJ/kg) Qua t ty o Waste, kg au Energy Potential, TJ Crop Residues* 17.65 55,806,000 985.0 Forest Residues** 19.56 7,851,000 153.6 efficiency, there would be h ,, Primary Mill Residues†† 20.00 194,000 3.9 Secondary Mill Residues†† 20.00 505,000 10.1 enough energy for 16,000 homes/year Urban Wood Residues†
includes dedicated energy crops and trees; wood and wood residues; plants; grasses; . - Issues of comparing apples and oranges Resource Assessment Status . ) of the five major cellulose feedstock categories (Forest residues, mill residues, urban wood wastes, agricultural crop residues, dedicated energy crops) Funding cut-backs lead to .
biomass energy. This study presents findings of an evaluation of the energy potential of agricultural and forest residues in Uganda using census data of the year 2008/2009. Annual productions of crop and forest residues were estimated using residue-to-product ratio (RPR) method. Energy potential of each residue class was then determined basing .
of DNA- and RNA-binding residues on the COMB_T dataset. 46 Figure 4.2. Comparison between the DNA and RNA machine learning (ML) consensus that targets combined prediction of DNA- and RNA-binding residues and the considered predictors of DNA- or RNA-binding residues on the COMB_T test
predicted DNA-binding residues by metaDBSite. In Fig-ure 3B, those residues in red are the real DNA-binding residues defined with 3.5 Å distance threshold. The dif-ference between residues in red and in blue can be seen directly from Figure 3, which is the false positive in the prediction. Here in this protein, the prediction accuracy
Disulfide shown between PwTBP residues 33 and 48. Boxed in blue are residues conserved among eukaryotes and in red are residues conserved between PwTBP and ScTBPc. Residues involved in binding TFIIA, TFIIB, and DNA are labeled a, b, and *, respectively. known archaeal TBPs but is not found in any eukaryotic TBP sequences. Sequence identity
