PRINCIPLES OF RATION FORMULATION FOR RUMINANTS

M.C.N. JAYASURIYA , , . i ™ ™ " j j mill

N a t i o n a l Science a n d T e c h n o l o g y C o m m i s s i o n , I III I Illllll 1 Hill (Illl III Illll I
Nawala, Rajagiriya, XA0202189
Sri Lanka

Abstract

PRINCIPLES OF RATION FORMULATION FOR RUMINANTS.

Feeding standards as practiced in developed countries could be misleading when non-
conventional feed resources are used in formulating rations for ruminant livestock in developing
countries. They tend to reject the poor quality feeds that are available in vast quantities. The non-
availability of good quality forage throughout the year and the need to optimise the efficiency of
utilisation of locally available feed resources have lead to the application of basic nutritional principles
when considering ration formulation. The alternative approach to the use of feeding standards would
be to ensure that the production system matches the available resources. The development of feed
supplementation strategies based on locally available feed resources require the understanding of the
relative roles and nutrient needs of the two-compartment system represented by the micro-organisms
in the rumen and the host animal.

1. INTRODUCTION

The relevance of using feeding standards in the formulation of rations for ruminant
livestock in developing countries of the tropics has been questioned for many years [1],
especially after the publication in 1980 of "Who needs feeding standards?" by Prof.
M.G. Jackson of the University of Pant Nagar, India [2]. Jackson argued that feeding
standards as practiced in developed countries are misleading when non-conventional feed
resources are used in formulating rations for ruminants in developing countries. He pointed
out that the level of production achieved might be considerably less than what is being
predicted by the feeding standard. More importantly, he emphasised that feeding standards
lead to the rejection of many locally available feed resources which were apparently poor in
supplying the digestible energy needed for production although they could be the main or the
sole feed resources available at the smallholder level. Feeding standards also encouraged
researchers in developing countries to copy feeding systems from the temperate countries,
which required resources that were often inappropriate on socio-economic grounds. They also
ignored the value of rumen non-degradable protein; in many instances although nutrient
requirements were satisfied according to traditional standards the responses did not
correspond to the predicted level of performance.
The smallholder farmers in developing countries have limited resources available for
feeding to their ruminant livestock. They are unable to select the basal diet according to the
requirement for production unlike their more fortunate counterparts in developed countries,
but use whatever is available at no or low cost. Therefore, the strategy for improving
production should be to optimise the efficiency of utilisation of the available feed resources,
and thereby attempt to maximise animal production.

2. FEED RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR RUMINANT LIVESTOCK

The availability of feed resources is determined by the land utilisation pattern. This
reflects the demand of the human population and the nature of the ecosystem which in turn is
a function of land and soil characteristics including terrain, availability of water, rainfall, soil
fertility, etc. Due to the ever increasing human population and the consequent increase in
demand for food, livestock feed tends to be derived from residues and by-products of the food
industry.
The major problems with feeding of livestock occur in those areas subjected to long
dry seasons, when there is insufficient plant biomass carried over from the wet season to
support domestic livestock population. The situation becomes more acute as the dry season
becomes established, when protein content of the natural grazing falls, often from 12-14% to
about 6-8%. The fall in crude protein content is also accompanied by an increase in fibre
content. Thus, the animal is faced with insufficient amounts of a low quality and relatively
indigestible feed. The situation is intensified by drought.
hi most developing countries, the major feed resource is natural grazing, often in
communal ownership. Over the past 50 years a rapidly expanding human population has
markedly increased pressure on land, causing arable land to encroach on the best of the
grazing land. In some areas this has made zero grazing a necessity, especially for dairy cattle
production, in place of the traditional grazing systems. Feed resources available for livestock
production in the tropics can be categorized into four groups.

2.1. High fibre-low protein feeds

These include fibrous residues arising from crops grown for human consumption, such
as straws and stovers from rice, millet, sorghum and maize, and sugarcane bagasse.
The production of crop residues and by-products can be estimated fairly accurately
from estimates of the primary product (e.g. grain), using multipliers which assume
grain:residue ratios. The uncertainty of such ratios can be judged by the different multipliers
used by different people [3,4]. Not withstanding such discrepancies in grainrresidue ratios for
estimating residue yields, it is quite evident that vast quantities of residues are produced as a
result of crop cultivation. A conservative estimate would be over 5 billion tonnes of dry
matter (DM) per year.
Crop residues are characterised by their high fibre content (>700 g of cell wall
material/kg DM), low metabolizable energy (<7.5 MJ/kg dry matter), low levels of crude
protein (20-60 g of crude protein/kg DM) and mineral nutrients and low to moderate
digestibility (<30-45% organic matter digestibility). Their daily intakes are often limited to
less than 20 g dry matter/kg live weight. Most residues are also deficient in fermentable
carbohydrates, reflected by the relatively low organic matter digestibility.
Chemical treatment increases the potential feeding value of crop residues. Alkali
treatment of fibrous residues has been well researched and the possibility of using urea as a
source of ammonia led to the expectations of rapid adoption of the technology in developing
countries. However, for various reasons this has not been realised [5].

2.2. High fibre-high protein feeds

By-products derived from crop production (tops and haulms from ground nut, sweet
potato vine, cassava leaves, bean straw) and industrial processing (bran from cereal milling —
rice, wheat and maize bran, brewer's grain), fall into this category of feeds. They are
generally less fibrous (below 700 but above 400 g of cell wall material/kg of DM) than those
in the first category but have relatively high amounts of crude protein (> 60 g/kg DM). Leaves
from tree legumes and browse plants such as Glyricidia, Leucaena and Erythrina, that have
around 250-350 g/kg of crude protein in DM, can also be considered in this category.

10
2.3. Low fibre-low protein feeds

These include feed resources derived from crops grown for renewable energy such as
sugarcane by-products and root crops. They are generally rich in energy and low in protein
content. Examples of this category would be molasses, oil palm juice and waste material
arising from the fruit processing industry (citrus pulp, pineapple waste) and root crops
(cassava waste).

2.4. Low fibre-high protein feeds

These are the feeds traditionally called concentrates and include oilseed meals and
cakes (coconut cake, soybean meal, cotton seed cake, groundnut meal/cake) and animal by-
products (fishmeal, blood meal, feather meal). They are valuable sources of good quality
protein for both ruminant and non-ruminant animals.
Oil seed meals and cakes may contain variable amounts of crude protein: coconut
meal contains around 200 g crude protein/kg of dry matter while decorticated oil seed meals
such as groundnut meal, and cotton seed meal (or cake) may contain as much as 400-500 g of
crude protein/kg of dry matter. The amount of oil contained in the by-product may affect the
keeping quality of the feed. It varies according to the method of extraction of the oil; solvent
extracted meals or cakes will contain less oil than expeller extracted meals or cakes.
Animal by-products are very good sources of high quality protein and can improve the
nutritive value of low quality forage based diets for ruminants. Fishmeal is often used for
balancing the amino acid content in monogastric feeds. Even for ruminants, fishmeal can
provide a high proportion of rumen non-degradable protein acting as a reservoir of amino
acids for high levels of production.
Natural pastures fall into the first and/or the second category depending on time of
harvesting, the nature of the pasture species, climatic conditions, etc.
The proximate composition of some common feeds found in developing countries and
classified according to the above criteria are shown in Table 1.

3. RATION FORMULATION FOR RUMINANTS — AN ALTERNATIVE

APPROACH

If one considers that the use of traditional feeding standards as practiced in developed
countries are inappropriate for developing countries with limited resources, then there must be
an alternative approach when formulating rations for ruminants. This alternative approach
would require that the livestock production system is matched with the resources available
and optimises the utilisation of locally available feed resources. Such an alternative approach
for formulating rations for ruminants should consider that:
> the efficiency of the rumen ecosystem cannot be characterised by any form of feed
analysis currently in use. This raises the question: can the feed support optimum rumen
function? What are the nature, amount and proportion of end products of fermentative
digestion?
> feed intake on some diets bear no relationship to digestibility of the feed
> feed intake is often influenced by supplementation
> the availability of amino acids cannot be inferred from the crude protein content of the
diet. This reflects the potential escape of nutrients from the rumen and their digestibility in
the small intestine

11
> the energy value of a diet and the efficiency of its utilisation are largely determined by the
relative balances of glucogenic energy, long chain fatty acids and essential amino acids
absorbed by the animal

Therefore, as described by Leng and Preston [6] and Preston and Leng [7], when
considering ways to optimise the utilisation of feed resources for ruminants it is necessary to
apply two basic concepts.
a) ensure optimum conditions for microbial growth in the rumen to make the
digestive system of the animal as efficient as possible
b) supply deficient nutrients to balance the products of digestion to requirements,
optimising production
c) any further increases in production should be by the use of supplements of protein,
starch and lipids.
This entails that the ruminant animal must be considered as a two-compartment
system having a digestive system with an efficient rumen fermentation optimising microbial
growth. This implies a requirement of nutrients for the microbes. The animal ought to rely on
the products of fermentation of those feed components that escape rumen fermentation but are
digested in the intestines for the supply nutrients for maintenance and production purposes.
The two systems are mutually supportive. Efficient rumen fermentation ensures that
the host animal receives the maximum amount of digestible nutrients from a given feed. The
rumen microbes need protein (amino acids, peptides), glucose and minerals, in particular
sulphur, potassium and phosphorous, as pre-cursors.
Maximum efficiency will occur when a continuous supply of fermentable
carbohydrate is matched with the correct amount of ammonia and amino acids so that
microbial protein is formed without waste of the major substrates (microbial cells contain 40
to 60 percent protein on a dry matter basis).

3.1. Feeding the rumen microbes

The two compartments system requires that the rumen microbes are adequately fed so
that they could perform at their optimum level. When feeding the rumen microbes the
following are important.
> free choice of basal diet to ensure maximum intake. Ideally, offer the animal over
and above its requirement — offer ENOUGH — to facilitate selection by the
animal of more digestible components.
> the need for ammonia is in excess of 200-250 mg per litre of rumen fluid to
maximise digestibility as well as intake. This is especially important when
considering fibrous crop residues and by-product feeds. It can easily be achieved
by allowing access to a highly soluble source of nitrogen such as urea in urea-
molasses multinutrient blocks.
> macro and micro minerals. Macro minerals phosphorus and sulphur and the micro
mineral cobalt are considered essential for optimum microbial growth. They can be
supplied through multinutrient blocks and/or mineral supplements or small
amounts of green forage.
> macro nutrients such as peptides and amino acids come from rumen degradable
proteins given in the basal diet.
>• an optimum ecosystem that will promote the rapid colonisation of the basal diet.
When possible, provision of a small quantity of highly digestible green forage (say
2 kg of fresh material/100 kg live-weight) is the best way of supplying this.

12
TABLE I. PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF SOME COMMON FEEDSTUFFS FOUND IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN
AFRICA AND ASIA (g/kg DRY MATTER)
Feed Resource Ash Crude Protein Crude Fibre Neutral detergent fibre Digestibility

(range — g/kg dry matter) (%)

High fibre-low protein low to moderate low high high low to moderate

Cereal straw/stover 40-120 20-60 >300 >800 30-45

Bagasse 30-40 <30 >450 >800 20-30
Sugarcane tops 50-60 50-70 >300 >700
Corn cobs 15-20 30-40 >300 >800
Cottonseed, groundnut hulls 30-60 40-60 >300

High fibre-high protein low to moderate moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high

Leguminous tree leaves (meal) 10-15 100-300 100-150 60-70

(Gliricidia, Leucaena, Erythrina)
Haulms and tops 60-150 60-195 120-300 >600 50-65
(bean, ground nut, soybean,
sweet potato vine)
Cassava leaf meal 70 120-250 150
Brewers grain 30-40 200-250 150-210 50-70
Cassava peels 70-120 50-120 100-300

Low fibre-low protein low to moderate low low low low to moderate

Molasses 70-100 <60

120-200 40-60
Citrus pulp 30-120 <60
low to moderate low to moderate moderate to high
Low fibre-high protein low to moderate moderate to high
30-300 60-70
Oil seed cakes 50-80 250-500
(coconut cake, groundnut
cake, cottonseed cake, sun
flower cake, soybean meal) 70-180 70-80
Brans (rice, wheat, maize) 20-90 80-160
Animal by-products 20-160 >600
(blood meal, fishmeal)
Poultry waste (offal, hatchery 50-200
waste, feather meal) 170-300
Cage layer manure 120-250 200-400
3.2. Feeding the host animal

When feeding the host animal the aim should be to increase the protein:energy ratio in
the nutrients absorbed. This is generally achieved by:
• increasing the efficiency of rumen fermentation to maximise microbial protein
production
• supplying rumen non-degradable protein (e.g. from cotton seed meal, sun flower
meal) to meet the deficit protein between that is synthesised in the rumen and that is
required by the host for a given level of production.

While the first above can be achieved by way of the basal diet supplying adequate
nutrients for optimum functioning of the rumen microbes the latter needs to be addressed by
way of supplementation.
When considering supplementation a number of factors have to be born in mind. The
purpose of supplementation would be to provide nutrients that are deficient in the basal diet
and additional nutrients needed for production. The selected supplements should not reduce
intake and utilisation of the basal diet but instead have the potential for enhancing them. The
ideal supplement will facilitate maximum utilisation of the basal diet and will be of limited
value as a feed for man or other monogastric species. The supplements should also be easily
available, cheap and require minimum labour for storing and feeding. At the same time they
should improve animal productivity, compatible with on-farm feeding practices and offer
minimum chances of poisoning or ill health to the animal.

REFERENCES

[1] PRESTON, T.R., WILLIS, M.B., Intensive beef production. Pergamon Press Ltd. UK
(1974).
[2] JACKSON, M.G., Anim Feed Sci. Technol. 6 (1980) 101-104.
[3] OWEN, E., In: Food Production and Consumption. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands (1976).
[4] KOSSILA, V.L., In: Better Utilisation of Crop residues and By-Products in Animal
feeding: Research Guidelines. 1. State of Knowledge. FAO Animal Production and
Health Paper No. 50, FAO, Rome, Italy (1985).
[5] OWEN, E., JAYASURIYA, M.C.N., Research and Development in Agriculture, 6
(1989)129-138.
[6] LENG, R.A., PRESTON, T.R., Tropical Anim. Prod. 1 (1976) 1-22.
[7] PRESTON, T.R., LENG, R.A., Matching ruminant production systems with available
resources in the tropics and subtropics. Penambul Books Ltd., Armidale, Australia
(1987).

14