We Are Intechopen, The World'S Leading Publisher of Open Access Books Built by Scientists, For Scientists

We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
4,800
Open access books available
122,000
International authors and editors
135M
Downloads
Our authors are among the
154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter 7
Current and Future Improvements in Livestock

Nutrition and Feed Resources
Grace Opadoyin Tona
Grace Opadoyin Tona
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73088
Abstract
This study reviews the current and future trends in the improvements being made in live-
stock nutrition and feed resources. There had been continuous improvements in global
livestock production for past decades. Most of the improvements have been in response
to increasing human populations, urbanization, income growth, production system effi-
ciency, and environmental sustainability. To meet up with the increasing global demand
for livestock products was the role earmarked to be played by animal nutritionists in a
manner that there would be optimization of feed efficiency to achieve more livestock
products from less feed. There has been the development and adoption of biotechnologi-
cal applications such as the feeding of genetically modified plants and the use of in-feed
additives such as antibiotics. In the past decades, the livestock feed industry had been
centered on the use of antibiotics as livestock growth promoters. However, there has also
been the negative development of microbial antibiotic resistance with various countries
promulgating laws and regulations to ban and discourage in-feed antibiotic applications
in the livestock feed industry. Thus, present and future improvements in livestock nutri-
tion and feed resources are now being directed at the use of approved probiotics and the
application of nanotechnology in livestock nutrition and feeding.
Keywords: improvements, livestock, nutrition, feeding, biotechnology
1. Introduction
Nutrition could be a serious limitation to livestock production especially when feed resources
are inadequate in both quality and quantity. Global livestock production over the years has
increased consistently and brought about increases in animal numbers [1, 2]. However, these
increases in the number of animals have not always been accompanied by an improved avail-
ability of livestock feed resources. These may result in overgrazing, erosion, reduced health,
© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
© 2018 The
Attribution Author(s).
License Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), under the
which permits terms of the
unrestricted Creative
use, distribution,
Commons
and Attribution
reproduction in any License
medium, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
provided the original work is properly cited. which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
148 Animal Husbandry and Nutrition
and performance [2]. Feed quality and quantity combined with low producer prices have
often forced farmers and feed producers to remain at low levels of animal feed production,
compensated by large numbers of animals. It is evident that high global population growth,
accompanied by high future projections of demand for livestock products, stresses the need
for higher productivity per animal as well as increases in the number of animals. Inadequate
feed quality and quantity impedes increased animal production. As the world popula-
tion is expected to increase from 6 to about 8.3 billion in 2030 at an average growth rate of
1.1% per year, it is essential to be prepared to produce sufficient food for the increased popula-
tion based on locally available feed resources especially in the developing countries [3]. These
authors [3] also stated that there are opportunities and challenges for researchers to increase
animal productivity in terms of quantity and quality, through the application of appropri-
ate technologies in production systems, nutrition, and feeding of livestock. Feed is the most
important input in all livestock production systems in terms of cost, and the availability of
low priced, high-quality feeds is critical if livestock production is to remain competitive and
continue to grow to meet demand for animal protein. A researcher [4] mentioned that con-
ventional methods of livestock improvements (genetics and breeding, livestock nutrition and
livestock disease management) have been used in the past and served the purpose of increas-
ing livestock productivity. However, these options can no longer sustain higher production;
consequently, new intensive techniques including biotechnology are now required to aug-
ment productivity. Modern biotechnology has the potential to provide new opportunities
for achieving enhanced livestock productivity in a way that alleviates poverty, improve food
security and nutrition, and promote sustainable use of natural resources.
Considerable improvement has occurred in livestock nutrition and feeding over the past
two decades. Globally, livestock production is growing faster than any other sector, and by
2020, livestock is predicted to become the most important agricultural sector in terms of added
value [5]. In a research conducted [6], it was also reported that the feeding of genetically engi-
neered (GE) crops to livestock for the past 15 years has shown compositional equivalence and
comparable levels of safety between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. Previous
researchers [7] stated that recently production demands on the livestock industry have been
centralized against the use of antibiotics as growth promoters due to growing concern over
microbial antibiotic resistance. Thus, with many countries reporting increased incidences of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, laws and regulations are being updated to end in-feed antibiotic
use in the animal production industry. This calls for suitable alternatives to be established
for inclusion in livestock feed. Many reports have shown evidence that approved probiotics
and nanoparticles may be better alternatives for animal growth promotion and antimicrobi-
als. Researchers [7], however, explained that despite the expansion of antibiotic resistance
in bacteria, antibiotics have not yet been rendered totally ineffective against them. And that
the delivery and efficacy of antibiotics could, however, be enhanced by nanoparticle carriers,
thereby potentially decreasing the dosage of antibiotics required for treatment.
Recent advances in livestock nutrition, especially in monogastrics, have focused on three main
aspects: (i) developing the understanding of nutrient requirements of livestock, (ii) determin-
ing the supply and availability of nutrients in feed ingredients, and (iii) formulating least-cost
diets that bring nutrient requirements and nutrient supply together efficiently.
Current and Future Improvements in Livestock Nutrition and Feed Resources 149
2. Nutrient requirements for livestock
Nutrient requirement tables provide a summary of recommended minimum levels of

nutrients for different livestock species. Livestock should be fed differently to meet body
requirement based on their species, age, and purpose of production. The recommenda-
tions only serve as guidelines used for choosing dietary nutrient (energy, protein, essen-
tial amino acids, essential fatty acids, minerals, vitamins) concentrations in practical diets.
Most nutrients are obtained from digestion of feedstuffs but few such as minerals, vitamins,
and some essential amino acids are often supplied as synthetic supplements particularly in
monogastrics.
2.1. Formulation of diets for poultry
Poultry raised under intensive system should be fed balanced diet based on species, age, and
purpose of production. The major classes of chickens are meat chickens (broilers) and lay-
ing hens (layers). Table 1 provides a summary of recommended minimum levels of selected
• Laying chickens
Nutrient requirements for laying chickens consuming between 80 and 120 g/hen/day are as follows: 12.50–18.80%
crude protein, 2.71–4.06% calcium, 0.21–0.31% nonphytate phosphorus, 0.13–0.19% mg/kg potassium, 29.00–
44.00 mg/kg zinc, and 0.13–0.19% sodium.
• Broiler chickens
Broilers of ages between 0 and 8 weeks old require the ranges of nutrients as follows: 18–23% crude protein;
0.80–1.00% calcium; 0.30–0.45% nonphytate phosphorus; 0.30% potassium; 8.00 mg/kg copper; 40.00 mg/kg zinc;
0.123–0.20% sodium.
• Broiler breeders
Broiler breeders require the following nutrients ranges: 19.5 g/day crude protein, 4.0 g/day calcium, 350.0 mg/day
nonphytate phosphorus, and 150 mg/day sodium.
• Turkey poults
Turkey poults at 0–12 weeks old require the following ranges of nutrients: 22.0–28.0% crude protein, 0.85–1.20%
calcium, 0.42–0.60% nonphytate phosphorus, 6.00–8.00 mg/kg copper, 50.00–70.00 mg/kg zinc, and 0.12–0.17%
sodium.
• Turkeys 12–24 weeks old

Turkeys 12–24 weeks old require the following ranges of nutrients: 14.00–19.00% crude protein, 0.55–0.75% calcium,
0.28–0.38% nonphytate phosphorus, 6.00 mg/kg copper, 40.00 mg/kg zinc, and 0.12% sodium.
• Turkey tom breeders

Turkey tom breeders require the following ranges of nutrients: 12.00% crude protein, 0.50% calcium, 0.25%
nonphytate phosphorus, 6.00 mg/kg copper, 40.00 mg/kg zinc, and 0.12% sodium.
• Turkey hen breeders

Turkey hen breeders require the following ranges of nutrients: 14.00% crude protein, 0.25% calcium, 0.35%
nonphytate phosphorus, 8.00 mg/kg copper, 65.00 mg/kg zinc, and 0.12% sodium.
Table 1. Summary of recommended minimum levels of some nutrients for different classes of poultry.
nutrients for layers, broilers, broiler breeders, turkey poults, turkey growers, turkey tom
breeders, and turkey hen breeders. In poultry, particularly in chickens, since each specific
genotype has its own requirements, most commercial feed formulations are carried out
based on minimum requirements recommended by the breeding companies from which
they were obtained.
2.2. Formulation of diets for pigs
There are numerous feed ingredients that provide nutrients that pigs require for normal
performance. Pigs do not require specific ingredients in their diets, but instead they require
energy and nutrients such as amino acids, minerals, and vitamins. They should be fed diets
that are balanced with respect to amino acids, containing adequate levels and ratios of
the 10 essential amino acids required by pigs for maintenance, growth, reproduction, and
lactation. The 10 essential amino acids are arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine,
methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine. In a review article [8], it
was explained that in pigs, amino acids are reported to be the chemical components of
protein and are generally supplied to the pig from the crude protein in the diet. Failure
to supplement low protein diet or feedstuff with sufficient amounts of good quality pro-
tein source was observed [8], which results in poor growth, insufficient feed utilization,
increased carcass fatness, general unthriftiness, and or reduced reproductive performance.
This researcher [8] also mentioned that in pigs, diet crude fiber should not exceed 10–15%
of the diet as feed intake may be depressed. Growing and lactating pigs should be fed
ad libitum while others could be limitedly fed. Presented in Table 2 are some amino acid
requirements in pigs.
Amino acid Growers Pregnancy Lactation

Arginine nd 0.15 0.41
Histidine nd nd 0.37
Isoleucine nd 0.42 0.46
Lysine 1.10 0.43 0.55
Methionine 0.26 0.12 0.30–0.36
Methionine/cystine 0.57 0.06 nd
Phenylalanine nd nd nd
Threonine 0.60–0.70 0.41 0.42
Tryptophan 0.18–0.20 nd 0.12
Valine nd 0.32 0.53–0.68
nd, not determined; source: [9].
Table 2. Amino acid (%) requirements for pigs.

2.3. Formulation of diets for fish
Fish farmers need to make use of well-balanced, less expensive feeds as well as good fish
farming management practices in order to achieve profitable production [10]. Species-specific
feed formulations, which address the nutritional requirements of the different life stages of
fish, are required in fish farming. Also, each specific genotype has its own nutrient require-
ments that meet the requirement for the different life stages. The fish larvae production and
nutrition are usually undertaken by specialist breeding companies. Most commercial fish
diets or feeds are formulated based on minimum requirements recommended by the breeding
Life stage/size class Range of values of crude protein (CP%)

Fry 45–50
Fingerling 45
Juvenile 43
Grower 42
Broodstock 35–40
Amino acids Requirement for all life stages (% aa)
Arginine 2.0
Histidine 0.7
Isoleucine 0.8
Leucine 1.4
Lysine 1.8
Methionine 1.0
Phenyalanine 1.2
Threonine 0.8
Tryptophan 0.2
Valine 1.3
Lipids Requirement for all life stages is 8–10% lipids
Essential fatty acids (minimum %)
Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) 0.5
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5n-3) 1.0
Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) 0.5
Carbohydrates (CHO) Requirement for all life stages is 12% CHO
Crude fiber, % max. 3.0
Gross energy, min. kJ/g 15.5

Life stage/size class Range of values of crude protein (CP%)

Digestible energy, min. kJ/g 15.5
Protein:energy ratio, mg/kJ 25.0
Minerals Requirement for all life stages
Macroelements (%)
Calcium, max. 1.0
Phosphorus, min. 0.8
Magnesium, min. 0.05
Sodium, min. 0.06
Microelements, min. (mg/kg)
Potassium 0.7
Iron 60.0
Copper 3.0
Manganese 13.0
Zinc 30.0
Selenium 0.3
Iodine 1.1
Vitamins min. (IU/kg) Requirement for all life stages
Vitamin A 2500
Vitamin D 2000–2400
Vitamins, min. (mg/kg) Requirement for all life stages
Vitamin E 25–100
Vitamin K 1.0
Thiamine 10.0
Riboflavin 5.0
Pyridoxine 6.0
Pantothenic acid 20.0
Niacin 10.0
Folic acid 2.0
Vitamin B 12 0.02
Choline 800.0
Inositol 300.0
Biotin 0.15
Ascorbic acid 40.0
Requirements were measured in fingerling and juvenile fish. Values for other life-history stages are estimates. Data
source: [12].
Table 3. Dietary nutrient requirements of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (requirements are expressed for
dry feed).
companies that supply the fry or fingerlings. Fish require nutrients such as crude protein,
essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, lipids, carbohydrates, crude fiber, minerals, and
vitamins [11]. Table 3 presents the summary of dietary nutrient requirements and utilization
of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (fish) at different life stages or size classes.
2.3.1. Ingredient composition for different life stages of fish
Some of the ingredients required in early fry to brooder stages are as follows: fish meal of
between 30 and 68%, corn meal of 0–4%, poultry by-product meal of 2–8%, ground wheat
of 17–22%, fish oil of 9–12%, vitamin premix of 1.5%, and mineral premix of 0.5%. Sources:
[10, 11].
2.3.2. Feed parameters and proximate composition for different life stages of fish
Some of the feed parameters and proximate composition requirements between early fry and
brooder stages are as follows: 3–8% of body weight, 6 months maximum shelf life of feed,
addition of probiotics to improve the feed conversion efficiency, 2–5 mm pellet size (mash for
early fry), 35–48% crude protein, 8–21% crude lipid, 9–12% ash, less than 3–6% crude fiber,
12–13% nitrogen-free extract, and 17–21 kJ/g gross energy. Sources: [10, 11].
2.4. The feeding of ruminants: cattle, sheep, and goats
Ruminants have distinct advantage over monogastrics in being able to convert organic mate-
rials that are not suitable for human consumption into products that are of high nutritional
value such as meat, milk, and by-products [13–15]. They also provide fertilizer from the fae-
cal and undigested residues. The aim in the feeding of ruminants thus should be to feed as
much forage as possible that could satisfy most of the nutrient requirements of the animal.
The quantity and quality of roughage made available to the ruminant will then determine the
amount and type of supplement or concentrate to be fed.
2.4.1. Feeding of young ruminants
In young stock, the rumen will not be developed and it will take a few months until the
rumen is fully developed and starts functioning. Until then, the young ruminant is similar
to a simple-stomached animal nutritionally. In young stock, essential amino acids should
be provided in required quantity in the ration. The B-complex vitamins, vitamins A and
D, and minerals should be provided usually from the milk. Colostrum should be given
at days 1–3 after birth as antibodies (gamma globulins) are transferred from the dam to
its young.
2.4.2. Feeding of adult ruminants
Ruminants have a forestomach composed of fermentation compartments, which contain large

amounts of microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, fungi). These break down the cellulose in
fibrous plant material into a form that can be digested in the animal’s stomach and intestines.
There is a symbiosis between ruminants and microorganisms, as the microorganisms need
the energy and nutrients in forage for their own nutrition, and the microorganisms are finally
broken down as protein source for the host ruminant. Thus, ruminants need lesser grains and
concentrate diets than monogastrics such as pigs and poultry, which do not have a forestomach
full of microorganisms, which act as protein source.
2.4.3. Ruminant nutrition
In ruminant nutrition, one must know the amount of energy required by an animal for a
specific production function, if it is desired to obtain the most efficient utilization of a feed-
stuff. During food metabolism, energy in the diet is broken down from gross energy into net
energy for maintenance and for production. To meet the energy requirements in ruminants,
the energy value of feeds is most important but one also needs to have a balance of other
nutrients such as proteins, amino acids, fats, minerals, and vitamins as shown in Table 4.
The deficiency in any one of the nutrients may impair metabolism. To minimize the pos-
sibilities of nutritional deficiencies, various feeding systems have been formulated to assist
nutritionists in selecting ration components. These systems involve (i) practical application
of the basic concepts of energy systems, (ii) metabolic processes whereby energy is released
from specific nutrients, and (iii) the roles played by volatile fatty acids in ruminant nutri-
tion. It is important to know that in general, as the fiber level of ruminant rations decreases,
the concentration of acetic acid in the rumen contents also decreases. The fiber fraction of
feeds are usually broken down into acetic, propionic, and butyric acids, and about 60% of
• Dry matter • Fat
• Feed category/class (e.g., forages, concentrates, etc.) • Major minerals: Ca, P, K, Mg, Cl, Na
• Processing factor (e.g., drying, ensiling, pellets • Minor minerals: S, Co, Cu, I, Fe, Mn, Se, Zn
production, urea treatment, multi-nutrients-blocks
production, etc.)
• Neutral detergent fiber (NDF): 15–19% of DM of • Amino acids: methionine, lysine, arginine, histidine,
minimum forage NDF, 25–33% of DM of minimum isoleucine, leucine, cystine, phenylalanine, threonine,
NDF in diets tryptophan, valine
• Acid detergent fiber
• Lignin • Vitamins: A, D, E
• Nonfibrous carbohydrates (NFC): 36–44% of DM of • Digestibility coefficients of: CP, NDF, fat, NFC
maximum NFC* in diets
• Crude protein—rumen degradable protein (RDP), • Feed additives

rumen undegradable protein (RUP)
*
Starch as source of NFC.
Source: [17].
Table 4. Some nutrient supply input requirements and the limits of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and nonfibrous
carbohydrate (NFC) requirements in ruminant diets (%).
the digestible energy from fibrous carbohydrates is converted to volatile fatty acids (VFA)
within the rumen. The conversion of carbohydrates to VFA is dependent on the microbes
present in the ruminant digestive tract. The level of 8% crude protein of diets is required
to provide the minimum ammonia levels required by microorganisms for optimum rumen
activity [16].
2.4.3.1. Formulation of diet in ruminants
Tables of values of nutrients (CP, fat, minerals, vitamins, etc.) required by ruminants are never
given because these values are calculated based on how rapidly the nutrients degrade in the
rumen (rate of digestion) and how rapidly the feed passes through the rumen i.e., rate of pas-
sage [17]. The rate of digestion is related to the properties of the feed, while rate of passage
increases with increasing dry matter intake (DMI), body weight of animal, etc. These values
are usually not constant; however, effort is being made to calculate more approximate values.
The protein requirement of ruminants can be divided into two groups: rumen degradable pro-
tein (RDP) or by pass proteins, which is degraded in the rumen by the rumen microbes e.g.,
groundnut cake, fish meal, soybean meal, rape seed cake, etc. [18]. These degraded proteins
are then broken down into amino acids and urea. However, rapid fermentation of proteins
in the rumen results largely to feed wastage (except in high milk production), since most of
the ammonia by-products liberated are excreted as urea through urine. Rumen undegradable
proteins (RUP) are not easily degraded by rumen microbes e.g., nonprotein nitrogen (NPN)
compounds such as urea, uric acid, biuret (usually present in fermented forages) and other
treated nitrogen sources, which normally escape the rumen fermentation. Shown in Table 4
are some nutrient supply input requirements and the limits of neutral detergent fiber (NDF)
and nonfibrous carbohydrates (NFC) requirements in ruminant diets.
3. Livestock feed availability and nutrition
Livestock nutrition can be categorized into diets for nonruminants (monogastrics) and rumi-
nants. Most nonruminants are omnivorous, having simple digestive system commonly with
nonfunctional caecum. However, the digestive system in ruminants has the four roughage
diet digestion chambers, rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum.
3.1. Commonly used conventional and alternative feedstuffs and/or agroindustrial

by-products
Energy sources normally constitute the highest proportion (about 50–60%) of livestock diets,
followed by plant protein sources (about (10–20%), next is the fiber and animal protein sources
(10–15%), and the lowest rates of inclusions usually occur in the minerals and additives as feed
ingredients. Globally, maize (corn) is the most commonly used energy source, and soybean
meal or cake is a common plant protein source, while fishmeal is the major animal protein
ingredient used in livestock rations. These three feed ingredients are known to be the conven-
tional livestock feed ingredients, and they usually constitute a part of livestock concentrate
feeds. They have been facing market competition with human food demands, especially in the
developing countries, and this trend has been tagged as “feed-food competition” [19]. To cope
Conventional feedstuffs Alternative feedstuffs Range of inclusion

rates (% of DM)
Energy source
Maize, vegetable oils Sorghum, cassava root meal or peel meal, yam peels, potato root 50–60
meal or peel meal, palm oil slurry, sesame seed meal, forage plants
Fiber sources
Wheat bran, maize bran Rice bran/husk, maize husk 10–15
Plant protein sources
Soybean meal, groundnut Palm kernel cake, cotton seed cake, pigeon pea meal, cowpea
*
10–20
cake, Palm kernel cake vines, groundnut haulms, soybean haulms, potato vines
Animal protein sources

Fish meal, blood meal Blood meal, poultry offal meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, dried
*
5–10
poultry manure meal, snail meat meal, insect fly, pupal and larval
meals, earthworms, crystalline amino acid sources
Mineral sources
Oyster shells Periwinkle shells 2–5

Bone meal Limestone 2–3
Dicalcium phosphate Malt dust 1–2
Feed additives
Vitamin premix 1
Common salt 0.25–0.50

Others (probiotics, 0.25–0.50
prebiotics
*
Serves as both conventional and alternative feedstuff.
Table 5. Conventional and the alternative feedstuffs commonly used in nonruminant and ruminant concentrate diet
formulations.
Ingredients (%) DM CP EE CF NFE Ash Source

Wheat bran 88.0 14–19 6.5 10.6–16.0 59.5 4.0 [10, 20]
Maize bran 93.0 10–15 4.4 11.6 70.8 3.2 [10]
Rice bran 91.0 12–13 2.4–3.4 12.3 63.0 0.9 [20]
Maize 87.0 9.9 4.4 2–3 70.0 4.5 [21]
Cassava root meal 88.3 1.5–3.5 3.4 3.7 91.0 1.1 [20]
Cassava peel meal 33.5 6.5 1.3 16.6 68.5 5.9 [22]
Ingredients (%) DM CP EE CF NFE Ash Source

Groundnut cake 90.0 45.3 11.0 5.0 27.5 1.2 [20]
Palm kernel cake 94.0 14–21 5–17 13–23 48.0 3–12 [23, 24]
Cotton seed cake 86–93 26–36 6.7 7.1 44.5 5.8 [10, 20]
Fish meal 95.0 35.0 8.6 17.6 45.0 9.1 [20]
Blood meal 89.5 76–80 1.2 1.5 47.1 1.3 [20]
Poultry manure 92.6 16.8 2.5 10.0 50.2 13.1 [25, 26]
Snail 86–91 65–67 7.9 3.06 17.2 7.8 [27]
House fly larva nd 60.0 20.0 nd nd nd [26, 28]
Leaf-meal (duck weed) 92.3 24.8 5.7 12.1 54.5 2.0 [20]
nd, not determined.
Table 6. Proximate analysis of some commonly used livestock feed ingredients.
with the feed-food competition, it has been necessary to explore the use of locally available,
cheaper alternative feedstuffs for use in livestock feed formulations. A wide range of alterna-
tive feedstuffs are being used in livestock feeding globally, and these could be categorized
into alternative energy, fiber, plant protein, animal protein sources, and feed additives as
shown in Table 5. Table 6 presents the proximate analysis of some commonly used livestock
feed ingredients.
4. Formulation of least cost rations
The aim in formulating least cost rations, particularly on large commercial farms, is to
undertake a precision feeding in order to lower cost and to maximize economic efficiency.
In the past, there was a great tendency to over formulate diets when the exact require-
ments, especially for critical nutrients such as amino acids and phosphorus for monogas-
trics, were uncertain. This practice is currently known to be wasteful and also lead to the
excretion of excess nutrients in manure, ultimately serving as source of environmental
pollution [29].
After defining the nutritional needs of a group of livestock, next step would be to match these
needs with the use of combination of ingredients and supplements to arrive in a balanced
diet that provides appropriate quantities of biologically available nutrients, particularly for
nonruminants. Thus, given the range of possible feedstuffs’ proximate composition (as shown
in Table 6), and the targeted dietary nutrient levels expected, a lot of calculations are then
carried out to arrive at least-cost diets. However, over the years, feed formulation has evolved
from a simple balancing of a few feedstuffs for a limited number of nutrients to a linear pro-
gramming system that operates with the use of computers [29].
Application Examples Functions

1. Microbial proteins Single-cell protein, multicellular To serve as new feed sources in the form of
(yeast protein) microbial proteins for livestock feeding
2. Genetically engineered Low phytate maize, high-oil maize Reduce the levels of antinutrients in forages and
forage crops other feedstuffs. Enhance nutrition
3. Feed additives
(a) Crystalline amino Methionine, lysine, threonine, Play vital role in improving protein utilization
acids tryptophan
(b) Antioxidants Butylated hydroxy toluene (BHT), To prevent auto-oxidation of fats and oils in the
butylated hydroxyl anisole (BHA), diet
ethoxyquin
(c) Antifungals Aflatoxin To control mold (e.g., Aspergillus flavus, A.

parasiticus) growth in feed, to bind and reduce
the negative effects of mycotoxins
(d) Antibiotics Avilamycin, virginiamycin, zinc To control gram-positive, harmful bacterial

bacitracin, avoparcin, tylosin, species in the gut, improve production
spiramycin efficiency, used as a prophylactic measure
against necrotic enteritis
(e) Antibiotic replacers
(i) Probiotics In-feed microbials Source of beneficial microbial species such as

Lactobacilli species and Streptococci species
(ii) Prebiotics Oligosaccharides Renders harmful bacteria inactive
NB: The use of avoparcin, zinc bacitracin, spiramycin, virginiamycin, and tylosin phosphate as animal feed additives
was banned in the European Union in 1998 and in 2006. The US, starting January, 2017, enforced a ban on the use of
antimicrobials (antibiotics and antifungals) to promote food animal growth. Sources: [29, 32].
Table 7. Biotechnological and allied applications that are employed in livestock nutrition.
5. Some biotechnological and allied applications employed in

livestock nutrition
Modern biotechnology has the potential to provide new methods for achieving enhanced
livestock productivity in ways that could alleviate poverty, promote food security and nutri-
tion, and also promote sustainable use of natural resources [4]. The applications of biotech-
nology in animal nutrition were reported [29] and are as summarized in Table 7. The author
mentioned that there could be the formation of new ingredients such as single-cell protein
and yeast protein, and the aim is to manufacture microbial proteins as new feed sources for
animal feeding. These could also be included in the ration of livestock in order to upgrade the
crude protein content of the ration.
Secondly, as outlined in Table 7, there could be the application of designer ingredients that
could be applied in designing genetically engineered plants and forage crops, which are
genetically modified using recombinant DNA technology with the objective of introducing
or enhancing a desirable characteristic in the plant or seed used. This author [4] explained
that transgenic forage crops are aimed at bringing about some benefits to consumers. Thus,
when transgenic forage crops are first fed to ruminants, then the animal products to be con-
sumed by humans from these ruminants are not themselves transgenic. This implies that food
products derived from animals fed with transgenic forage crops are safer than when directly
modified crops are consumed by humans. Also, in another research [30], it was demonstrated
that the inclusion of genetically modified corn silage in dairy cows diets did not affect feed
intake or milk production. The corn silage diet fed to the dairy cows was engineered with
substantial improvements in their nutrient (proteins, amino acids, oils, fatty acids, starches,
sugars, fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes) contents. The feed intake or milk production was
not negatively affected, and there was absence of transgenic DNA in the milk harvested from
these experimental cows. Thus, designer ingredients or plants (e.g., high oil maize) with
genetic modification are made to enhance nutrition. There could also be designer ingredi-
ents (e.g., low-phytate maize) or forage crops engineered to reduce the level of antinutritive
compounds, which occur in livestock feed ingredients. A researcher [5] reported that feeds
derived from genetically modified (GM) plants (a quarter of which are now grown in devel-
oping countries), such as grain, silage, and hay, have contributed to an increase in livestock
growth rates and milk yield. Also, genetically modified crops with improved amino acid pro-
files can be used to decrease nitrogen excretion in pigs and poultry. The author [5] explained
that increasing the levels of amino acids in grains means that the essential amino acid require-
ments of pigs and poultry can be met by diets that are lower in protein content.
Other biotechnological applications of different classes of feed additives outlined in Table 7
are the use of crystalline amino acids, antioxidants, antifungals, antibiotics, and different
classes of antibiotic replacers. Feed additives may be added to the diet to enhance the effec-
tiveness of nutrients, and they also exert their effects in the gut or on the gut cell walls of the
animal [31]. They are used for the purpose of promoting animal growth through their effect
in increasing feed quality and palatability. Besides, they are mixed with the feed in nonthera-
peutic quantities and thus protecting the animal against all sorts of harmful environmental
stresses. Low levels of additives in animal feed may contribute to increased production of
animal protein for human consumption and thereby decrease the cost of animal product. The
use of avoparcin, zinc bacitracin, spiramycin, virginiamycin, and tylosin phosphate as animal
feed additives was banned in the European Union in 1998 and in 2006 [29]. The US, starting
January, 2017, also enforced a ban on the use of antimicrobials (antibiotics and antifungals) to
promote food animal growth [32]. Envisaging a total ban on in-feed antibiotic use, a multitude
of compounds (individually and in combinations) are being tested to serve as alternatives [29].
Probiotics are defined as feed supplements that are added to the diet of farm animals to
improve intestinal microbial balance [33]. Thus, in contrast to the use of antibiotics as nutri-
tional modifiers, which destroy bacteria, the inclusion of probiotics in feeds is designed to
encourage certain strains of bacteria in the gut at the expense of less desirable gut microor-
ganisms [4]. This researcher [4] also mentioned that probiotics could produce vitamins of the
B complex and digestive enzymes, and the stimulation of intestinal mucosa immunity, by
increasing protection against toxins produced by pathogenic microorganisms. Thus in rumi-
nants, probiotics are effective in controlling the diseases of the gastrointestinal tract of young
animals. It was found that in adult ruminants, yeasts could be used as probiotics to improve
rumen fermentation [33]. The use of these feed additives may help to make animal products
to be more homogenous and of better quality.
6. Practical application of biotechnology in monogastrics (poultry,

pigs, and fish) and ruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats)
Biotechnology is offering a lot of opportunities for increasing agricultural productivity and

for protecting the environment through the reduced use of agrochemicals [34]. Techniques
of modern biology such as genetic manipulation of rumen microbes, and chemical and
biological treatment of low-quality animal feeds for improved nutritive value among oth-
ers have become a reality in the past few decades and are finding their ways into present
research and development programs. These go along side with fleeting coverage of issues
concerning the potential environmental hazards of genetic engineering and other biotech-
nologies, and the need for their ethical evaluation and for an international regulatory mech-
anism [34]. Practical application of biotechnology in monogastrics (poultry, pigs, and fish)
and in ruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats) is hereby discussed below.
6.1. Practical application of biotechnology in poultry feeding
Nonnutritive feed additives such as the enzymes xylanases, β-glucanases, and phytates are used
to overcome antinutritional effects in some grains and to improve overall nutrient availability
and feed value. Antioxidants such as butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT), butylated hydroxyl
anisole (BHA), and ethoxyquin are used in poultry feeds to prevent auto-oxidation of fats and
oils in poultry diets. Antifungals such as aflatoxins are added to poultry feed ingredients such
as grains, groundnut cake, and cottonseed cake to control fungi growth in feed and to bind
and reduce the negative effects of mycotoxins. Probiotics are used in poultry to encourage the
growth of certain strains of bacteria in the gut at the expense of other less desirable microorgan-
isms. Prebiotics (oligosaccharides) may function to bind harmful bacteria in the digestive system
of poultry. In laying hens and broilers, research findings [35] showed that feeding recombi-
nant DNA-produced crops and newly expressed proteins in genetically modified plants did not
show chemical and physical properties different from those fed with native plants.
6.2. Practical application of biotechnology in pig feeding
In a research review article [36], it was reported that the quest to widen the narrow range of
feed ingredients available to pig producers has prompted research on the use of low cost,
unconventional feedstuffs, which are typically fibrous and abundant. Maize cob, a by-prod-
uct of a major cereal grown worldwide, has potential to be used as a pig feed ingredient.
Maize cob is usually either dumped or burnt for fuel. However, the major hindrance in the
use of maize cobs in pig diets is their lignocellulosic nature (45–55% cellulose, 25–35% hemi-
cellulose, and 20–30% lignin), which is not easily digestible by pigs’ digestive enzymes. These
researchers [36] explained that the high fiber in maize cobs (930 g neutral detergent fiber/
kg DM; 573 g acid detergent fiber/kg DM) increases the rate of passage and sequestration of
nutrients in the fiber, thereby reducing their digestion. The application of simple techniques
such as grinding, heat treatment such as sun-drying, and fermentation can modify the struc-
ture of the fibrous components in the maize cobs and improve their utilization. Pigs could
extract up to 25% of energy maintenance requirements from fermentation products. Also,

dietary fiber improves pig intestinal health by promoting the growth of lactic acid bacteria,
which suppress proliferation of pathogenic bacteria in the intestines.
In another journal article [37], it was reported that in growing pigs, the effects of four dietary
levels of microbial phytase (Natuphos) enzyme on the apparent and true digestibility of Ca,
P, CP, and AA in dehulled soybean meal were assessed. In the study, the researchers observed
that supplemental microbial phytase did not improve the utilization of amino acid provided
by soybean meal but was an effective means of improving calcium and phosphorus utiliza-
tion by the growing swine fed soybean meal-based diets.
It was observed that in pigs, feeding recombinant DNA produced crops and newly expressed
proteins in genetically modified (GM) plants showed no biologically relevant effects on feed
intake, digestibility, or animal health [35]. Also, there were no unintended effects on the per-
formance and fertility of animals. The food products obtained from the pigs fed with GM
plants were of good chemical composition and quality.
6.3. Practical application of biotechnology in fish feeding
In a journal review article [38], it was reported that the use of probiotics in feed for fish and
its inclusion in intensive aquaculture to promote healthy gut is growing. These researchers
stated the need for alternative measures that will perform closely and effectively to the use of
antibiotics after it was banned in the European Union (EU) in 2006. They stated that several
definitions of probiotics mainly for aquaculture were considered. Among them is the defini-
tion that probiotics is described as “any microbial cell provided via the diet or rearing water
that benefits the host fish, fish farmer, and fish consumer, which is achieved, in part at least,
by improving the microbial balance of the fish.” The authors regarded the direct benefits
to the host fish as immunostimulants, improved disease resistance, reduced stress response,
and improved gastrointestinal morphology. The benefits to the fish farmers and consumers
include improved fish appetite, growth performance, feed utilization, improvement of carcass
quality, flesh quality, and reduced malformations. It was explained that combining probiot-
ics with prebiotics could improve the survival of the bacteria and enhance their effects in the
large intestine [38]. Thus, probiotic and prebiotic effects might be additive or even synergistic
(prebiotic is a nondigestible carbohydrate that helps to render harmful bacteria inactive).
6.4. Practical application of biotechnology in ruminant feeding
Globally, food-producing animals consume 70–90% of genetically engineered (GE) crop

biomass. Furthermore, many experimental studies have revealed that the performance and
health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines [39].
In a mini review article [40], it was reported that probiotic live cells with different beneficial
characteristics have been extensively studied and explored commercially in many different
products in the world. Their benefits to young ruminants have been supported in several
scientific articles. These benefits include enhanced development of the rumen microflora,
improved digestion, and nitrogen flow toward lower digestive tract and improved meat and
milk production during the adult stage of the ruminant. The author reported that in order to
attain higher profit margin in intensive small ruminant production, farmers are now shifting
from traditional to high input feeding systems. He explained that in order to harvest real
benefits from small ruminants, which are raised on nutrient-rich diets, feed additives like
probiotics are needed to be used to enhance the efficiencies of nutrient utilization in grow-
ing ruminants. Thus, the more feed an animal consumes each day, the greater would be the
opportunity for increasing its daily production. Probiotic supplementation was found to
increase feed intake and to influence performance of ruminants [40]. Also, the use of probiot-
ics in a healthy animal stimulated nonspecific immune response and enhanced the system
of immune protection. The probiotic that enhanced immunoglobulin level may have more
positive effect on growth performance, production, and ability to resist diseases. Examples
of probiotics suggested were those containing Lactobacillus plantarum (which breakdown car-
bohydrates into glucose) and Aspergillus oryzae (which produce enzymes that are involved in
the digestion of carbohydrates and fiber) [40]. Some other researchers [41] observed that the
addition of probiotic containing yeast in supplemental diet enhanced growth performance
and immune response of Zandi lambs. Another study was conducted that involved a 765-day
trial [42]. This trial included two lactations, using nine primiparous, and nine multiparous
dairy cows. The experimental cows were fed diets containing whole crop silage, kernels, and
whole crop cobs from GE corn and its isogenic non-GE counterpart. There were no signifi-
cant differences in the gene expression profiles of the cows fed either the transgenic or the
near-isogenic rations [42]. Similarly, dairy cows, beef cattle, and other ruminants were fed
recombinant DNA-produced crops and newly expressed proteins in genetically modified
plants (GMP) [35]. There were no unintended effects in composition and contamination of
genetically modified plants compared with isogenic counterparts. Rather, there were lower
mycotoxin concentrations in GMP with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) [35].
6.5. The European Union requirements for the assessment of probiotics or microbial
feed additive usage
The following guidelines of usage should be followed: the identity of the product (proposed
proprietary name) should be stated. There should be characterization of the active agents
(nomenclature, biological origin, genetic modification, compliance with released directive for
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), toxin production, virulence factors, antibiotic pro-
duction and antibiotic resistance, and other relevant properties). Then, the conditions for the
usage of the microbial feed additive should be given [43].
Safety guidelines under the conditions for use: there should be performed a detailed safety
assessment.
Studies on target species: studies should be carried out on target species or animals of differ-
ent categories to determine the safety margin for each species. The aim of this trial is to evalu-
ate for the target animal the risk of an accidental overdosing that could originate during feed
production (mixing heterogeneity). This trial shall be conducted at a dosage being at least
10-fold the maximum recommended dosage. Studies on the effect of the microbial additive
on the microflora of the digestive tract are also required when claim is made concerning an
effect on the intestinal microflora.
Consumer safety assessment: certain toxicological tests are required to be performed to

exclude the possibility that when the probiotic product or microbial additive is accumulated
in the target animal, it will not form a consumer risk. The test includes both genotoxicity stud-
ies (a metaphase cytogenetic assay and other in vivo and in vitro studies) and oral toxicity test
(a 90-day in-feed or drinking water).
7. The application of nanotechnology in livestock nutrition and

feeding
Nanotechnology is described as the study of materials at the nanoscale, with at least one
dimension generally ranging between 1 and 100 nm (10−9 to 10−7 m) [7]. Nanomaterials
are best referred to as particles. There are three basic systems of nanoparticles in their
applications; that is, nanoparticles can serve as a whole functional unit, or as a delivery
vehicle for materials conjugated to their surface, or as encapsulated within. The applica-
tion of nanotechnology in animal production is new as production in livestock industry
has been centered on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters [7]. However, there has
been much anxiety globally over microbial antibiotic resistance, and laws and regula-
tions are being updated to ban in-feed antibiotic use in the livestock production industry.
This has thus set in motion the search for alternatives for animal growth promoters and
antimicrobials for inclusion in animal diets. Nanoparticles may present a feasible alter-
native to antibiotics and may help bar pathogens from entering animal production sites.
Metal nanoparticles with net positive charges are drawn to negatively charged bacterial
membranes, resulting in leakage and bacterial lysis [44]. There has been the discovery
of the use of nanoparticles for nutrient delivery into livestock feeds. Copper is regularly
added to feeds for its ability to promote animal growth and performance in addition to its
antimicrobial properties [45]. In another research [46], it was demonstrated that nanoform
copper could better improve piglet energy and crude fat digestion through the augmenta-
tion of lipase and phospholipase A activity in the small intestine compared to a basal diet
supplemented with copper sulfate (CuSo4). However, further investigations need to be
done to ascertain whether antibiotics in feed can be completely replaced by nano-antimi-
crobials. Also, despite the expansion of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, antibiotics have
not yet been rendered totally ineffective. However, their delivery and efficacy may be
enhanced by nanoparticle carriers, and thus substantially decreasing the dosage of anti-
biotics required for treatment. Thus, it was stated that the inclusion of nutrient supple-
ments in livestock feed, regardless of particle size, may benefit the producer if there is
still consumer demand for the final product [7]. These authors [7] further explained that
if for example, meat and eggs obtained from an animal fed nanoparticle supplements are
enhanced and are indiscernible from the original product, then they are likely to still be
favorable to consumers. These researchers mentioned that it is, however, important to
understand the role of the nanoparticle as an additive in a given biological system and
the by-products from that system and to ensure that it is safe for consumption before its
application in livestock production.
7.1. Future prospects
As nanotechnology continues to develop and gain more attention, its application would grow
wider in the livestock industry [7]. Thus, nanoparticles may have to be used alongside the use
of antibiotics until it gains more understanding and global acceptance.
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, continuous provision of adequate quantity and quality of nutritious feeds

for livestock is necessary to sustain the livestock industry. This is not negotiable now that
human population is growing exponentially in the twenty-first century. The adoption of new
biotechnological applications and biosafety in livestock nutrition and feeding systems is nec-
essary in order to promote improvements in current and future global livestock production.
The main cost of livestock production is on the production of concentrate feeds. Alternative
feed resources should be properly utilized, and low nutrient quality feeds should be
improved upon by the use of various technologies, for better utilization by livestock. There
could be the optimizing of production of high-quality forages such as genetically engineered
forages with high nutrient contents and genetically manipulated for more digestible cell
wall components. Generally, focus could be directed at meeting the nutritional requirements
of livestock through biotechnological applications. In the developing countries, particularly
during the dry season when forage is scarce, there could be the substitution of forage with
nutrient detergent fiber (NDF-)rich feeds and feedstuffs. These may include crop residues,
agroindustrial by-products and other feedstuffs that are of little or no value in human feed-
ing. There could be the development of carefully balanced partial or total mixed rations.
Meeting the nutritional need and varied dietary preferences of the growing global population is
also needed. This could be addressed through continuous development of better quality feeds for
quality livestock products and by-products. The adoption of new biotechnological applications
and bio-safety in livestock nutrition and feeding systems is necessary in order to promote improve-
ments in current and future global livestock production. There should be the development and use
of biologically safe animal feeds for the production of economically viable and safe animal prod-
ucts. Therefore, the production of feed ingredients that would be affordable for livestock producers
with minimum use of chemical additives and use of locally available feed resources is paramount.
Future improvements in livestock feed resources could be based on the application of biotech-
nology such as use of safe antibiotic replacers. Probiotics and prebiotics could be employed
to improve animal performance. The risks that may be involved in the use of antibiotics
and the development of antibiotic resistance in livestock and in humans should be kept at
minimum levels. These could be checked through continuous enforcement of guidelines in
the use of feed additives and microbials. Further expectations about the future improvement
in livestock feeding could involve the application of nanoparticles in livestock feeds and
feeding to enhance animal nutrition, growth, and performance. The biosafety of the use of
nanotechnology, however, needs to be ascertained. Possible risk control in the application of
microbials and nanotechnology could include continuous monitoring and control of biologi-
cal and environmental safety, in terms of guarding against the re-emergence of livestock and
human diseases and antibiotic resistance through the livestock feed industry.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges useful suggestions given by Prof. David F. Apata at the
planning stage of this write-up.
Author details
Grace Opadoyin Tona
Address all correspondence to: [email protected]
Department of Animal Production and Health, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology,

Ogbomoso, Nigeria
References
[1] Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The state of food and agriculture. 1989.
Available from: www.fao.org/docrep/017/t0162e/t0162e.pdf
[2] Kaasschieter GA, de Jong R, Schiere JB, Zwart D. Towards a sustainable livestock pro-
duction in developing countries and the importance of animal health strategy therein.
Veterinary Quarterly. 1992;14(2):66-75. DOI: 10.1080/01652176.1992.9694333
[3] Wanapat M, Kang S, Polyorach S. Development of feeding systems and strategies of

supplementation to enhance rumen fermentation and ruminant production in the trop-
ics. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2013;4(32):1-11. Available from: http://
www.jasbsci.com/content/4/1/32
[4] Asmare B. Biotechnological advances for animal nutrition and feed improvement. World
Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014;2(3):115-118. Available from: http://pubs.sciepub.
com/wjar/2/3/5
[5] Fereja GB. Use of biotechnology in livestock production and productivities: A review.
International Journal of Research—Granthaalayah. 2016;4(6):100-109. Available from:
http://granthaalayah.com/Issues.html
[6] Van Eenennaam AL. GMOs in animal agriculture: Time to consider both costs and ben-
efits in regulatory evaluations. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2013;4(37):
1-20. DOI: 10.1186/2049-1891-4-37
[7] Hill EK, Li J. Current and future prospects for nanotechnology in animal production.
Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2017;8(26):1-18. Available from: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/issues/283324/
[8] Adesehinwa AOK. Energy and protein requirements of pigs and the utilization of fibrous
feedstuffs in Nigeria—A review. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;7(25):4796-4806.
Available from: www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/edition/29_December_2008
[9] Baker DH, Speer VC. Protein-amino nutrition of nonruminant animals with empha-
sis on the pig: Past, present and future. Journal of Animal Science. 1983;57(2):284-299.
Available from: www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/edition/29_December_2008
[10] Munguti JM, Musa S, Orina PS, Kyule DN, Opiyo MA, Charo-Karisa H, Ogello EO. An
overview of current status of Kenyan fish feed industry and feed management prac-
tices, challenges and opportunities. International Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Studies.
2014;1(6):128-137. Available from: https://www.fisheriesjournal.com/vol1issue6/issue6c.
html
[11] Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Aquaculture, feed and fertilizer resources
information system: In rainbow trout—feeding methods. 2017. FAO_ Feeding methods.
html
[12] National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirements of fish. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press; 1993. 114 p
[13] Church DC. Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants. Nutrition. Vol. 2. 3rd ed.
Oregon, USA: Albany Printing Co.; 1974. 401-693 p
[14] Sastry NSR, Thomas CK. Livestock Production Management. New Delhi, India: Kalyyani
Printings, Noida; 2012. pp. 278-361
[15] Reynolds L. Small ruminant production-the present situation and possible nutri-
tional interventions for improvement—An overview of research at the Humid Zone
Programme of ILCA in South-Western Nigeria. In Proceedings of the workshop on the
potential of forage legumes in farming systems of Sub-Saharan Africa. ILCA, Addis
Ababa: 1986. Available from: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitsream/handle/10568/4612/
small_ruminant_25.pdf?sequence=1
[16] Norton BW. The nutritive value of tree legumes. In: Gutteridge RC, Shelton HM, edi-
tors. Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: CAB International;
1994. pp. 177-191. Available from: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93970301.pdf
[17] National Research Council (NRC). Revisions in the 2001 (NRC) Nutrient Requirements of
Dairy Cattle; 2001. 47-51 p. Available from: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93970301.pdf
[18] Belewu MA. A Functional Approach to Dairy Science and Technology. 1st ed. Ilorin,
Kwara State, Nigeria: Adlek Printing Enterprises; 2006. pp. 86-112
[19] Mengesha M. The issue of feed-food competition and chicken production for the
demands of foods of animal origin. Asian Journal of Poultry Science. 2012;6:31-43.
Available from: scialert.net/previous.php?issn=1819-3609
[20] Udo IU, Umoren UE. Nutritional evaluation of some locally available ingredients
used for least-cost ration formulation for African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in Nigeria.
Asian Journal of Agricultural Research.2011;5(3):164-175. Available from: Scialert.net/
jindex.php?issn=1819-1894
[21] Sule Enyisi I, Umoh VJ, Whong CMZ, Abdullahi IO, Alabi O. Chemical and nutritional
value of maize and maize products obtained from selected markets in Kaduna State,
Nigeria. African Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014;5(4):100-104. Available
from: http://www.interesjournals.org/ajfst
[22] Smith OB. A review of ruminant responses to casssava-based diets. In: Hahn SK,
Reynolds L, Egbunike GN, editors. Proceedings of the IITA/ILCA/University of Ibadan
Workshop on the Potential Utilization of Cassava as Livestock Feed in Africa; 14-18
Nov, 1988. Available from: http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5458E/x5458e07.htm
[Accessed: 2014-09-14]
[23] Boateng M, Okai DB, Baah J, Donkoh A. Palm kernel cake extraction and utilization
in pig and poultry diets in Ghana. Livestock Research for Rural Development. June
2008;20(7). Article # 99. Available from: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/7/boat20099.htm
[24] Oladokun AA, Rahman WA, Suparjo NM. Prospect of maximising palm kernel cake uti-
lization for livestock and poultry in Malaysia: A review. Journal of Biology, Agriculture
and Healthcare. 2016;6(13):107-113. Available from: www.iiste.org
[25] Hadjipanayiotou M, Labban LM, Kronfoleh AE, Verhaeghe L, Naigm T, Al-Wadi M,

Amin M. Studies on the use of dried poultry manure in ruminant diets in Syria. Livestock
Research for Rural Development. June 1993;5(1). Available from: http://www.lrrd.org/
lrrd5/1/syria2.htm
[26] Hussein M, Pillai V, Goddard JM, Park HG, Kothapalli KS, Ross D, Ketterings QM,
Brenna JT, Milstein MB, Marquis H. Sustainable production of housefly (Musca domes-
tica) larvae as a protein-rich feed ingredient by utilizing cattle manure. PLOS ONE.
Feb 7, 2017;2017. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171708
[27] Sogbesan OA, Ugwumba AAA, Madu CT. Nutritive potentials and utilization of garden
snail (Limicolaria aurora) meat meal in the diet of Clarias garriepinus fingerlings. African
Journal of Biotechnology. 2006;5(20):1999-2003. Available from: www.academicjournals.
org/journal/AJB/article-full-text-pdf/F17002B9171
[28] Makinde OJ. Maggot meal: A sustainable protein source for livestock production—A
review. Advances in Life Science and Technology. 2015;31:35-42. Available from: www.
iiste.org
[29] Ravindran V. Poultry feed availability and nutrition in developing countries. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Poultry Development review. In:
Proceedings. 2010. pp. 60-78. Available from: www.fao.org/3/a-a1705e.pdf
[30] Phipps RH, Jones AK, Tingey AP, Abeyasekera S. Effect of corn silage from an herbicide-
tolerant genetically modified variety on milk production and absence of transgenic DNA
in milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2005;88:2870-2878. Available from: www.journalof-
dairyscience.org/issues
[31] Yirga H. The use of probiotics in animal nutrition. Journal of Probiotics and Health.
2015;3(2):132. DOI: 10.4172/2329-8901.1000132
[32] Ramanan L. India’s poultry industry adds to drug resistance. SciDev.Net Asia & Pacific
desk. 2017. Available from: www.scidev.net/global/agriculture/news/india-poultry-
antibiotic-resistance.html
[33] Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. A review. Journal of Applied Bacteriology.
1989;66:365-378. Available from: https://www.performanceprobiotics.com/Downloads/
Articles/Fuller%2019
[34] Rege JEO. Biotechnology Options for Improving Livestock Production in Developing
Countries, with Special Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA); 1996. pp. 1-28. Available from: http://
www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5473b/x5473b05.htm Accessed: 2017-09-26
[35] Flochowsky G. Feedipedia. Animal Feed Resources Information System. Braunschweig,
Germany: INRA CIRAD AFZ and FAO (c) Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-
Loeffler Institut (FLI) Federal Research Institute for Animal Health; 2012. Available
from: https://www.feedipedia.org
[36] Kanengoni AT, Chimonyo M, Ndimba BK, Dzama K. Potential of using maize cobs in
pig diets—A review. Asian-Australas Journal of Animal Science. 2015;28(12):1669-1679.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc46470741
[37] Traylor SL, Cromwell GL, Lindemann MD, Knabe DA. Effects of level of supplemen-
tal phytase on ileal digestibility of amino acids, calcium and phosphorus in dehulled
soybean meal for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science. 2001;79:2634-2642. Available
from: https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/pdfs/79/10/2
[38] Borch K, Pederson IE, Hogmo RO. The use of probiotics in fish feed for intensive aqua-
culture to promote healthy guts. Advances in Aquaculture and Fisheries Management.
2015;3(7):263-273. Available from: http://internationalscholarsjournals/aiafm
[39] Van Eenennaam AL, Young AE. Prevalence and impact of genetically engineered feed-
stuffs on livestock populations (invited review). Journal of Animal Science. 2014;92(10):
4255-4278. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25184846
[40] Bahari M. A review on the consumption of probiotics in feeding young ruminants.

Appro Poult Dairy & Vet Science. 2017;1(2). APDV 000508 Crimson Publishers. http://
www.crisonpublishers.com
[41] Dabiri N, Hajimohammadi A, Mahdavi A, Raghebian M, Babaei A, Bahrani M.
Effect of different levels of biosaf probiotic in medium concentrate diet on perfor-
mance and blood factors of Iranian Zandi lambs. Journal of Fisheries & Livestock
Production. 2006;4:4 P.1-4. Available from: http://www.omicsonline.org/openaccesss/
effect-of-different-levels-of-biosaf-probiotic
[42] Guertler P, Brandi C, Meyer HD, Tichopad A. Feeding genetically modified maize
(MON810) to dairy cows. Comparison of gene expression pattern of markers for apop-
tosis, inflammation and cell cycle. Journal Verraucherschutz Lebensmittelsicherh.
2012;7:195-202. Geneexp.ibt.cas.cz/153.pdf
[43] Anadon A, Martinez-Larranaga MR, Martinez MA. Probiotics for animal nutrition
in the European Union. Regulation and safety assessment. Regulatory Toxicology
and Pharmacology. 2006;45:91-95. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed16563585
[44] Gahlawat G, Shikha S, Chaddha BS, Chaudhuri SR, Mayilraj S, Choudhury AR. Microbial
glycolipoprotein-capped silver nanoparticles as emerging antibacterial agents. Microbial
Cell Factories. 2016;15:25. DOI: 10.1186/s12934-016-0422-x
[45] Solaiman SG, Craig TJ Jr, Reddy G, Shoemaker CE. Effects of high levels of Cu supple-
ments on growth performance, rumen fermentation, and immune responses in goat
kids. Small Ruminant Research. 2007;69:115-123. Available from: www.smallrumi-
nantresearch.com/article/s0921-4488(06)00005-8/pdf/abstract
[46] Gonzales-Eguia A, Fu C, Lu F, Lein T. Effects of nanocopper on copper availability
and nutrients digestibility, growth performance and serum traits of piglets. Livestock
Science. 2009;126:122-129. Available from: www.livestockscience.com/article/51871-1413
(09)00230-3/fulltext

We Are Intechopen, The World'S Leading Publisher of Open Access Books Built by Scientists, For Scientists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

We Are Intechopen, The World'S Leading Publisher of Open Access Books Built by Scientists, For Scientists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

We Are Intechopen, The World'S Leading Publisher of Open Access Books Built by Scientists, For Scientists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Our authors are among the

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

Interested in publishing with us?

Current and Future Improvements in Livestock

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Keywords: improvements, livestock, nutrition, feeding, biotechnology

2. Nutrient requirements for livestock

Nutrient requirement tables provide a summary of recommended minimum levels of

2.1. Formulation of diets for poultry

• Turkeys 12–24 weeks old

• Turkey tom breeders

• Turkey hen breeders

2.2. Formulation of diets for pigs

Amino acid Growers Pregnancy Lactation

Isoleucine nd 0.42 0.46

Lysine 1.10 0.43 0.55

Methionine 0.26 0.12 0.30–0.36

Methionine/cystine 0.57 0.06 nd

Threonine 0.60–0.70 0.41 0.42

Tryptophan 0.18–0.20 nd 0.12

Valine nd 0.32 0.53–0.68

nd, not determined; source: [9].

Table 2. Amino acid (%) requirements for pigs.

2.3. Formulation of diets for fish

Life stage/size class Range of values of crude protein (CP%)

Amino acids Requirement for all life stages (% aa)

Lipids Requirement for all life stages is 8–10% lipids

Essential fatty acids (minimum %)

Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) 0.5

Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5n-3) 1.0

Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) 0.5

Carbohydrates (CHO) Requirement for all life stages is 12% CHO

Crude fiber, % max. 3.0

Gross energy, min. kJ/g 15.5

Life stage/size class Range of values of crude protein (CP%)

Protein:energy ratio, mg/kJ 25.0

Minerals Requirement for all life stages

Calcium, max. 1.0

Phosphorus, min. 0.8

Magnesium, min. 0.05

Sodium, min. 0.06

Microelements, min. (mg/kg)

Vitamins min. (IU/kg) Requirement for all life stages

Vitamins, min. (mg/kg) Requirement for all life stages

Pantothenic acid 20.0

Folic acid 2.0

Ascorbic acid 40.0

2.3.1. Ingredient composition for different life stages of fish

2.4. The feeding of ruminants: cattle, sheep, and goats

2.4.1. Feeding of young ruminants

2.4.2. Feeding of adult ruminants

Ruminants have a forestomach composed of fermentation compartments, which contain large

2.4.3. Ruminant nutrition

• Dry matter • Fat

• Crude protein—rumen degradable protein (RDP), • Feed additives

2.4.3.1. Formulation of diet in ruminants

3. Livestock feed availability and nutrition