See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379460112

Effect of value addition to rice straw on the nutritional improvement and milk
productivity of dairy cattle

Article · April 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 6

5 authors, including:

M. Mazharul Islam Amrin Akter

Bangladesh Agricultural University Bangladesh Agricultural University
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Salahuddin M.N. Sultana

Bangladesh Agricultural University Bangladesh Agricultural University
8 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Mazharul Islam on 01 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effect of value addition to rice straw on the nutritional improvement and
milk productivity of dairy cattle
MM Islam1, A Akter1, M Salauddin1,2, MN Sultana1 and MM Uddin1*
1
Research group: Dairy Nutrition, Economics, Environment and Marketing under the Department of Animal
Nutrition, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh; 2Bangladesh Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd.,
Lahirimohonpur, Ullahpara, Sirajgonj

Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the physical and chemical value addition to rice straw on
nutritional quality improvement of rice straw and its effect on milk productivity and composition. Twelve
crossbred milking cows (Frisian Cross) of mid-lactation stage and second parity, having average initial
body weight of 398.72 ± 42.22 kg and milk yield of 6.42± 0.78 kg were assigned to three treatment
group (each group has 4 animals) and one control group. Four treatments were considered: T0
(control): loose rice straw + green grass + concentrate; T1: value addition to rice straw through
chopping (physical) + green grass + concentrate; T2: value addition to rice straw through urea and
molasses without chopped (Chemical) + green grass + concentrate; and T3: value addition to rice straw
through urea molasses with chopping (Physical and chemical) + green grass + concentrate. The results
revealed that T2 was significantly (p<0.05) higher than T0, T1 and T3 where total DM intake was 13.44±
0.26, 12.96±0.38, 12.47±0.16 and 12.06±0.31 for T2, T0, T3 and T1, respectively and the same was
found for Crude protein. The daily milk yield was higher in T3 (8.12±0.30 kg/day) and followed by T0
(7.30±0.23 kg/day), T1 (6.61±1.35 kg/day) and T2 (6.78±0.09 kg/day) but daily milk yield gains were
0.31, 0.11, 1.44 and 1.46 kg in T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively and differences were highly significant
(p<0.01) among the groups. Milk composition of fat (4.40, 3.97, 4.90 and 4.10%), Protein (3.88, 3.69,
3.98 and 3.72%), SNF (8.42, 8.69, 8.49 and 8.13) and TS (12.57, 12.34, 12.96 and 11.90) in T0, T1, T2
and T3, respectively. There was significant difference (p<0.01) where the cows supplemented with UMS
without and with chopping recorded SNF. Further study might be needed to estimate the economics of
the value addition for enhancing the adoption of this technology at farm level through development of
entrepreneurship.

Keywords: milk yield, SNF, fat, value addition, rice straw

Bangladesh Animal Husbandry Association. All rights reserved. Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 2020. 49 (1):55-62

by 3.7% which cause an increase in the cost of

Introduction milk production by 15% during corona virus
(Covid-19) crisis (Uddin et al. 2020). This
Bangladesh has 1.47 million of dairy farms of mismatch between input and output price have
which 41% are the household farms (small scale) substantial negative effect on the achievement of
belonging 29% cows of the total cows (IFCN, sustainability of dairy farming. Along with this
2019). Bangladesh dairy has been transforming crisis, the dairy farmers also have been facing the
from livelihood-oriented to more enterprise- scarcity of the rice straw during monsoon.
driven dairy which might require improved
feeding system for sustaining the production One of the potential options for dairy
(Uddin et al. 2020).The productivity of milk has development is to improving feeding
not yet reached to expected level simply due to management that includes the nutritionally
shortage of quality feed throughout the year and improved quality rice straw in the daily ration.
use of low-quality rice straw apart from poor The typical ration of dairy cattle in Bangladesh is
genetics. Three most used feed ingredients for consisting of rice straw from 47-67% (Uddin et
dairy cattle are rice straw, green grass and wheat al. 2013). Rice straw is considered as the most
bran (Uddin et al. 2013). However, the price for important sources of roughage in Bangladesh.
those three ingredients has been increasing The recent survey results revealed that 89% of
rapidly while the price for milk is not increasing in the farmers use rice straw in their dairy cattle
the same pace. Rather, the milk price has ration (Islam, 2019). The quality of the roughage
decreased by 17% and feed price has increased and efficient feeding management plays the

*Corresponding author: [email protected] 55

 Value addition to rice straw for dairy cattle

central role in improving the milk production. The Materials and Methods
negative feed balance scenario (Khan and Sarker,
2014; Uddin et al. 2017) has driven the feed Selection of the study areas and typical
scientist to develop alternative feeding dairy farms
management, which is technologically, The study was conducted in a typical family farm
economically, and environmentally feasible and which was located in Ullahpara Upazilla under the
meeting the nutritional requirement for the Sirajgonj district (use geographical information
cattle. Treating rice straw both physically and system for location). This district is the highest
chemically has been proven as promising milk producing region in the country. The district
technology which has been tested on-station for was mainly characterized by the high density of
its effective use at farm level. However, scanty of cattle (dairy cattle population with higher
research has been done to evaluate its use at on- proportion of dairy farms following intensive
farm level, particularly on dairy farming. Even it production system (Uddin et al. 2011). The vast
is done but it has not been properly extended to majority (over 70 per/cent) of ‘dairy’ cattle are
the farm level. The farmer, on the other side, is kept in herds with an average of 3.5 animals
not adopting this technology because of limited (Hemme et al. 2004). The on-farm feeding trial
information about the benefits of value-added was conducted in Ullahpara upazilla.
straw, high labour cost, lack of labour availability
and high price of molasses. The limited technical Experimental trial
knowledge has also been impeding this The experiment was conducted in two phases:
technology to be adopted at farm level. The first phase was the treatment of straw for
Considering this, this study has been undertaken nutritional value addtion and feeding of dairy
to conduct the value added rice straw feeding cows and the second phase was laboratory
trial on-farm in order to demonstrate the efficacy analyses of value added straw and analyis of milk
of this technology and to develop the capacity of sample. Treatment of straw and related activities
the farmers as well as motivate the farmers to were carried out on-farm which is located in
continue this technology after the experiment. Lahirimohanpur, Ullapara, Sirajganj.
Another motivation for study was to investigate
the actual reasons, why are the farmers not using
this proven technology?

Table 1: Layout of the experiment on evaluation of the use of value added straw

Parameter Treatements

T0 T1 T2 T3

Number of cows 3 3 3 3

Breed Frisian Crossbred Frisian Crossbred Frisian Crossbred Frisian Crossbred

Average age (year) 4.5 5.0 5.25 7.5

Average body weight Kg) 357.67 413.33 372.58 451.3

Milk Yiled (Kg/cow) 7.16 6.5 5.33 6.67

Duration (days) 21 21 21 21

Loose rice straw Chopped rice straw Urea Molasses Urea Molasses
+Green Grass + Green treated straw treated straw
Ration +concentrate Grass+concentrate without with chopping +
chopping+Green Green Grass with
Grass+concentrate concentrate

T0 (control): loose rice straw + green grass + concentrate; T1: value addition to rice straw through chopping
(physical)+ green grass + concentrate; T2: value addition to rice straw through urea and molasses without
chopped (Chemical) + green grass + concentrate; and T3: value addition to rice straw through urea molasses
with chopping (Physical and chemical) + green grass + concentrate.

56
 Islam et al. (2020) Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 49 (1):55-62

Layout of the Experiment urea, molasses and chopped straw were weighed
out separately. Preparation urea molasses
Twelve dairy crossbred cows were seleted for this
without chopped and with chopped followed same
study following Completely Randomized Design
procedure.
(CRD). The animals were divided into four groups
while each group consists of three cross-bred Feed intake
(Frisian Cross bred) lactating dairy cows. All
Every morning and evening before feeding the
groups of dairy cows received common
animals, each feed was weighed carefully and
concentrate mixture containing wheat bran,
total quantity of feed supplied to individual
khesari bran and compound feed. The
animals was recorded. From the second day of
experimental layout is given in Table 1.
feeding trial, before supplying feed to the
Collection of experimental materials animals, the amount of refusals of the feed of the
previous day was collected, weighed and
Wheat bran, khesari bran, compound feed and
recorded, The feed refused by each group of
common salt were purchased from the local
animals during 24 hours was deducted from the
market and mixed properly. Rice straw was
feed supplied to the animals on matter basis and
collected from Milk Vita Ltd. Commercial fertilizer
was recorded as the daily dry matter intake by
grade granulated urea (NH2-CO-H2N, 46%N) and
the animal.
commercial cane molasses were purchased from
local market. The composition of molasses and Data recording and parameters studied
urea are presented here- Molasses: DM-77.0%,
Every day at 6:00AM left over of feed ingredients
Sugars-46.0%, CP-3.7%, NFE-87.50%, Ash-
if any was weighed out using digital weighing
9.0%, OM-91.0%, ME-9.3 MJ/Kg. Urea: DM-
balance and were recorded as feed intake.
98.0%, CP-266.0% (Premier molasses and urea,
Subtracting the residues left from the supplied
2006).
amount. Throughout the period feed samples
Experimental Feed Preparation and Feeding were taken from the supplied and refusal part
weekly to make the composite sample for
Preparation of concentrate mixture
calculating the nutrient supplied and intiike.
A hand-made concentrate mixture was prepared
Sample collection and storage
using the proportion of 38.8% wheat bran,
38.8% compound feed, 19.4% khesari bran, 3% Both milk and feed sample were collected during
salt and mineral source specially, calcium the entire period of experiment at the field. The
carbonate. feed samples were weighted as fresh basis, and
data were recored and transported through air
Preparation of chopped rice straw
tight package to the Animal Nutrtion Analytical
A plastic sheet was spread over the soil, then laboratory for further analysis. The milk samples
rice straw was collected from straw pile and were collected from the farm and transported and
chopped into pieces by chopper machine and stored in the Milk Vita Laboratory.
storage on the sheet.
Chemical analysis of feed and milk
Preparation of urea molasses straw without compostion
chopped
Chemical analysis for crude protein (CP), crude
At first urea, molasses and straw were weighed fiber (CF), ether extract (EE), Ash and nitrogen
out separately. A polyethylene sheet was spread free extract (NFE) were done with respective
over the soil, then the straw was scattered on the samples of feed and faeces following the methods
polyethylene sheet. Urea was then put in a dish of (AOAC 2010) as well as neutral detergent fiber
and dissolved thoroughly with water. Molasses (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of feedstuff
was added with urea solution and mixed were also analyzed. Hemicellulose was calculated
thoroughly by a stick. Urea molasses solution was from the difference between NDF and ADF. Milk
poured into a watering can from the dish and compostion such as fat, protein, Solids-not-Fat
sprayed over the straw and mixed properly by (SNF) was analysed milk vita quality laboratory.
hand. This was left for half an hour and then fed All the samples were analyzed in duplicate and
to the animals. mean values were recorded.

Preparation of urea molasses straw with Statistical analysis

chopped
All of the data were manged Microsfot 365
Rice straw was collected from straw pile and version 2020 and all statistical analyis was done
chopped into pieces by chopper machine. At first by using STATA 2012.

57
 Value addition to rice straw for dairy cattle

Results and Discussion rumen of rice straw. Microbial nitrogen supply

increased with increasing the supply of nitrogen,
The chemical composition of the experimental fermentable carbohydrate and probably the other
feed consisting of with and without valued added essential nutrients (Tolera and Sundstol, 2000),
straw is depicted in the Table 2. The percent where molasses may serve the major supply of
composition varied depending on feed type, in these essential nutrients. Ahmed et al (2003)
which the contents of CP were higher in the observed that urea treatment improved CP
concentrate ingredients and lower amount in content of rice straw from 2.68 to 8.70%. The
roughage feed ingredients which is quite usual increases of CP content due to urea treatment
but the interesting to observe here is that when supported by Saadullah et al (1981). The CP
rice straw is exposed to either physical or content in UMS with loose and chopped rice were
chemical value addition, nutritional level 10.15% and 12.24% respectively. The higher
especially protein content has been increased protein content of UMS with chopped straw might
substantially. be due to the fact that due chopping, the surface
The relatively higher contents of CP, in the of the straw becomes more to absorb more urea
concentrate feed ingredients than in straws solution than the non-chopped straw.
revealed their paramount nutritional importance Chemical value-added straw combined with
to augment ruminants on poor quality roughages. physical value addition increased CP content of
It was seen from the table that loose and the rice straw more than double from loose dry
chopped rice straw contained 5.92 and 6.09% straw but decrease the NDF from 76 to 56%
crude protein which was increased by physical denoting the breakage of lignified bond and
value addition (chopping) and chemical value release of hemicellulose. On the other hand, cell
addition (Urea and molasses).Addition of small wall components were also affected by urea
amount of energy source increased the microbial treatment by reducing the NDF and hemicellulose
nitrogen synthesis (Osuji et al. 1993) which is contents of rice straw by 10.30% and 39.89%
also reflected in this study as the CP content due to binding of ammonia with straw and
increment in the urea and molasses treated may solubilization of hemicellulose by the action of
be due to the readily available energy from the ammonia evolved from urea (Srinivasulu et al.
molasses and high crude protein content from 1999; Misra et al. 2006). The CP content in UMS
urea, which was used by the micro-organisms for with loose and with chopped were 12.24% and
their growth and increased microbial protein in 10.15% respectively.

Table 2: Chemical Composition of Experimental Feeds (Dry matter basis)

Feed Tre DM Composition (g/100 g DM)

ingredients at (g/100g)
me OM CP CF EE NFE Ash NDF ADF
nt
Loose rice straw T0 94.3 82.44 4.92 31.28 1.2 45.04 17.56 76 50
Chopped rice T1 94.52 82.76 5.09 30.64 2.06 44.97 17.24 68 50
straw
UM Treated T2 94.47 84.97 10.15 26.64 4.71 43.47 15.03 66 42
loose rice straw
UM Treated T3 94.35 83.98 12.24 22.58 4.43 44.73 16.02 56 36
chopped straw
Grass All 88.46 88.47 10.21 28.96 2.45 46.85 11.53 68 46
Wheat Bran 95.7 97.53 13.68 1.86 1.01 80.98 2.47 36 24
Khesari Bran 88.82 93.61 17.51 23.78 1.6 50.72 6.39 50 42
Pellet feed 89.92 89.59 20.14 3.75 3.5 62.2 10.41 18 10

T0 (control): loose rice straw + green grass + concentrate; T1: value addition to rice straw through chopping
(physical) + green grass + concentrate; T2: value addition to rice straw through urea and molasses without
chopped (Chemical) + green grass + concentrate; and T3: value addition to rice straw through urea molasses
with chopping (Physical and chemical) + green grass + concentrate. DM: Dry matter; CP: Crude protein; CF:
Crude fiber; EE: Ether extract; NFE: Nitrogen free extract; OM : Organic matter; ADF: Acid Detergent fiber;
NDF: Neutral detergent fiber; UM: Urea molasses.

58
 Islam et al. (2020) Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 49 (1):55-62

Intake of value added straw and nutritional The higher highest crude protein intake is
improvement observed for the T2 which might be due to the
fact that higher DM intake and it’s associated with
The intake in terms of dry matter and nutrients of
CP content. It may be due to addition urea
value-added straw is depicted in Table 3 which
molasses which may cause a higher rate of
shows a significant (p<0.05) differences among
fermentation, increased rate of passage and
the groups. In relation to DM intake, is observed
therefore, resulted in higher intake and less gut
that DM intake of T2 was higher than that ofT0, T1,
fill. T3 also added urea molasses but DM intake is
and T3. This could be due to the softening of
decreased in T2 because wastage was high due to
fibrous portion of straw by soaking with urea
chopped straw and secondly and the most
solution which makes it more palatable to the
importantly it is suspected that length of the
animals (Akbar, 1992). Another reason could be
straw is highly correlated with the feed intake
that because the treatment of straw increased
and digestion. The lower the chop length than 2
the readily available nitrogen source for the
inch might have reduced the rumination effect
microbes in the rumen resulting in higher
which ultimately cause less efficiency in protein
microbial activity and rapid fermentation and rate
digestion as well as the intake. Since in
of passage of digesta (Islam, 1989).
Bangladesh, it was found from during field study
Crude protein (CP) intake was higher in animal that there is virtually no straw chopper is
receiving diet T2 and diet T3than diet T0 and diet available which can produce the chopped length
T1 have been showed in Table 4.8. Total CP more than 4 inches. However, it is also not clear
intake of experimental group T0, T1, T2 and T3 the ideal chop length for increased efficiency in
were 1.72, 1.61, 1.93 and 1.94 kg, respectively. value added straw utilization. The voluntary
There was highly significant (p>.05) differences intake of dry matter of urea treated paddy straw
among the groups on CP intake. The CP intake fed ad libitum was higher (P<0.05) than
from rice straw of different experimental group untreated paddy straw supplemented with urea
was 0.28, 0.24, 0.64 and 0.65 kg respectively. or treated straw fed in restricted amount (Gupta
CP intake from rice by the animals of T2 groups et al. 2003).
was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of the
animals receiving diet T0, T1 and T3.

Table 3: Total daily nutrient intake of the experimental dairy cattle

Parameters Diets (Mean ± SD) SED Level of

Significance
T0 T1 T2 T3

TDMI 12.96ab 12.06b 13.44a 12.47b 0.08

(kg/day) ±0.38 ±0.31 ±0.26 ±0.16 *
c d a b
TCPI 1.72 1.61 1.93 1.84 0.002
(kg/day) ±0.0.03 ±0.03 ±0.05 ±0.02 *
b b a a
CPI from Rice straw 0.28 0.24 0.64 0.65 0.004
(kg/day)
±0.042 ±0.0 ±0.02 ±0.09 **

TNDFI 6.43a 5.79b 6.40a 5.69b 0.02

(kg/day) ±0.19 ±0.15 ±0.13 ±0.07 **

TADFI 4.46a 4.15b 4.41a 3.94c 0.01

(kg/day) ±0.13 ±0.11 ±0.09 ±0.05 *
abc
Different superscripts indicate significant (P < 0.01) differences between means in the same column; TDMI:
Total Dry Matter Intake; TCPI: Total Crude Protein Intake; CPI: Crude Protein Intake; TOMI: Total Organic
Matter Intake; TNDFI: Total Neutral Detergent Fiber Intake; TADFI: Total Acid Detergent Fiber Intake; T0
(control): loose rice straw + green grass + concentrate; T1: value addition to rice straw through chopping
(physical) + green grass + concentrate; T2: value addition to rice straw through urea and molasses without
chopped (Chemical) + green grass + concentrate; and T3: value addition to rice straw through urea molasses
with chopping (Physical and chemical) + green grass + concentrate; NS: Non-significant;*: 5% level of
significant; **: 1% level of significant.

59
 Value addition to rice straw for dairy cattle

This explanation has been supported by the dietary treatments (urea, urea + soybean meal,
higher intake of treated straw (UMS) than that of soybean). Miah et al. (2000); Alam et al. (2006)
untreated straw (Table 3). Mathur et al. (1985) in indigenous and crossbred cows found better
also reported that soaked straw resulted in higher (P<0.05) milk yield in cows fed UMB than
intake than untreated straw. The higher CP controls (without urea). Vu et al. (1999) found
content of the soaked straw diet might have better (P<0.05) daily milk yield in crossbred
caused higher microbial activity in the rumen Holstein-Friesian cattle fed urea-treated rice
resulting in higher feed intake than that of straw than in those without urea.
untreated straw (control) diet. The average
Milk composition of different experimental
intake, nutritive value and milk production
groups
performance of the diet was expected to be
higher in treated group than that of control Milk composition of different experimental groups
group. The present findings were well are presented in Table 5, where it shows that the
corresponding with the results of Ahmed et al. result of this study also indicated milk
(2003) that crude protein intake was significantly composition of fat (4.40, 3.97, 4.90 and 4.10%),
higher (p<0.05) in urea-treated rice straw. Protein (3.88, 3.69, 3.98 and 3.72%), SNF (8.42,
Similarly, Narayan et al. (2004) also found a 8.69, 8.49 and 8.13) and TS (12.57, 12.34,
higher CP intake in urea treated straw. It is 12.96 and 11.90) in groups T0, T1, T2 and T3,
evident from the Table. 4.8 that CP intake of respectively. A significant difference (p0.01) was
animals increased with the increased supply of observed in terms of milk yield fed by value
urea molasses treated rice straw both loose and added rice straw and non-valueadded rice straw.
chopped contained more CP than loose rice straw. However, Rehrahie et al. (2010) reported that
As a result, higher intake of CP was observed in only milk protein was significantly different while
diet T2 and T3 group. milk fat, total solid and lactose were not
significantly different between treated and
Daily Milk Yield
untreated wheat straw. In addition, Rehrahie and
Daily milk yield and milk yield gain by the Ledin (2004) reported that the effect of hay-
different groups of cows have been presented in based diet, urea treated straw based diet on milk
the table 4, where it shows that the initial milk fat percent didn’t differed significantly. According
yield of the experimental groups of animal were to O’Connor (1994), any ration that increases
7.17±0.29, 6.50±1.32, 5.33±0.76 and milk production usually reduces the fat
6.67±0.58 in the fed diet T0, T1, T2, and T3 percentage of milk. It is also believed that the fat
respectively. It can be seen that the daily milk content is influenced more by roughage (fiber)
yield gains were 0.31, 0.11, 1.44 and 1.46 kg in intake and the solid-not-fat content can fall if the
treatment groups T0, T1, T2, and T3 respectively cow is fed a low energy diet. In temperate type
and differences were highly significant (p<0.01) cows, the fat and SNF percentages tend to be
among the groups. But, total milk yield were higher in the early weeks of lactation, dropping
7.30, 6.61, 6.78 and 8.12 kg per day in the by the third month then rising again as milk yield
treatment groups T0, T1, T2, and T3 respectively gradually declines (O’ Manhony, 1988).
were not significantly different (P>0.05). The
result is consistent with Berger et al, 1994 who
found similar results (P>0.05) among three

Table 4: Mean of daily milk yield of different experimental groups

Parameters Diets (Mean ± SD) SED Level of

Significa
T0 T1 T2 T3 nce

Initial Milk yield (kg/day) 7.17±0.29 6.50±1.32 5.33±0.76 6.67±0.58 0.69 NS

Total Milk yield (kg/day) 7.30±0.23 6.61±1.35 6.78±0.77 8.12±0.30 0.64 NS
Milk yield gain (kg/day) 0.13b±0.51 0.11b±0.24 1.44a±0.07 1.46a±0.30 0.10 **
abc
Different superscripts indicate significant (P < 0.01) differences between means in the same column; T0
(control): loose rice straw + green grass + concentrate; T1: value addition to rice straw through chopping
(physical) + green grass + concentrate; T2: value addition to rice straw through urea and molasses without
chopped (Chemical) + green grass + concentrate; and T3: value addition to rice straw through urea molasses
with chopping (Physical and chemical) + green grass + concentrate; NS: Non-significant;*: 5% level of
significant; **: 1% level of significant.

60
 Islam et al. (2020) Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 49 (1):55-62

Table 5: Milk composition of different experimental groups

Parameters Diets (Mean ± SD) SED Level of

Significance
T0 T1 T2 T3
Fat (%) 4.4±0.44 3.97±1.16 4.90±0.35 4.10±0.20 0.42 NS
Protein (%) 3.88±0.29 3.69±0.24 3.98±0.37 3.72±0.16 0.09 NS
b a a
Solids not fat (%) 8.42 ±0.14 8.69 ±0.08 8.49 ±0.24 8.13±0.13 0.03 *
Total solids (%) 12.57±0.52 12.34±0.86 12.96±0.22 11.90±0.21 0.42 NS
ab
Different superscripts indicate significant (P < 0.01) differences between means in the same column; T0
(control): loose rice straw + green grass + concentrate; T1: value addition to rice straw through chopping
(physical) + green grass + concentrate; T2: value addition to rice straw through urea and molasses without
chopped (Chemical) + green grass + concentrate; and T3: value addition to rice straw through urea molasses
with chopping (Physical and chemical) + green grass + concentrate; NS: Non-significant;*: 5% level of
significant.

Milk selling is the major source of income for the study, it is clearly evident that value addition
dairy farmers (Uddin et al., 2010) which imply through urea and molasses without chopping is
that dairy farmers invest strong feeding and better (T2) than value addition with chopping
managerial skill to increase the milk production. (T3). The chopping length of less than 2 inch has
However, since the milk fat and SNF is linked negative impact on the feed intake and milk
with formal sector, farmers also take care their yield. This study, finally, concludes that value
animals toward a feeding system which lead to addition to rice straw with urea and molasses
higher fat content. The milk price of famers paid without chopping can be used for increasing the
by the formal sector is based on the fat content nutritional quality and milk yield and Solids-Not-
which signifies the need for adopting strategy Fat (SNF). The further study might be needed to
particularly roughage feeding to increase the fat. identify the optimum chopping length on the
value addition and milk productivity increase and
At the same pace, the processors must comply
why the farmers does not adopt this technology
with the SNF 8% for marketing their milk as set
at farm.
by the Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute
(BSTI). In contrast, for the informal sector, milk
price is solely depending on the volume, which
Acknowledgement
once again leads to the adoption of the feeding The authors highly acknowledge the Krishi
practices that increase the volume of milk. Since Gobeshona Foundation (KFG) project (Reference:
the value-added straw has influence on the milk TF 49-L/17) for financial support for materializing
yield gain as it is seen from the table 4, it is of this study. The authors also acknowledge the
paramount important to extend the valued added Bangladesh Milk Producers Cooperatives Union
straw feeding technology to the wider range of Ltd (Milk Vita) for providing access to data and
the dairy farmers. It is noteworthy to mention their affiliated farms for conducting experiments.
that the value addition by adding urea and
molasses is well evident long before, but the key Conflict of interest
interesting point is that this technology is not
adopted at all at farm level. This implies that There is no conflict of interest neither on the
factors that affect the farmers decision on to results nor any part of this study.
adopt the urea treated technology need to be
explored. References
Ahmed S, MS Khan, M Shahjalal and KMS Islam
Conclusion (2003). Effect of feeding urea and soybean meal
treated rice straw on digestibility of feed
The value addition of poor-quality rice straw is
nutrient and growth performance of bull calves.
obvious in the context of dairy farming in Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science.
Bangladesh. As most of the dairy farmers compel 15(4): 522-527.
to use rice straw, any intervention that help to
Akbar MA (1992). Methods of urea incorporation in
increase the nutritional quality and enhance milk straw and their effects on performance of
yield is of highly prioritized. However, the degree buffalo heifers. Asian-Australasian Journal of
and magnitude of the value addition plays key Animal Science 5(3): 545-548.
role in increasing nutritional quality. From this

61
 Value addition to rice straw for dairy cattle

Alam MGS, MSU Azam and MJ Khan (2006). O’Connor CB (1994). Rural Dairy Technology. ILRI
Supplementation with Urea and Molasses and Training Manual No.1. International Livestock
body weight, milk yield and onset of ovarian Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
cyclicity in cows. Journal of Reproduction and 54p.
Development 52: 529–535.
Osuji PO, S Sibanda and TV Nsahlai (1993).
AOAC (2004). Official methods of analysis. (17th Supplemntation of maize stover for Ethiopian
edition). American Official Analytical Chemist menz sheep: effects of cottonseed, noug
(AOAC) Gaithersbury, Maryland, 20877-2417, (Guizotiaabyssinica) oe sunflower cake with or
USA. without maize omn intake, growth, apparent
digestibility, nitrogen balance and excretion of
Berger LL, GC Fahey, LD Bourquin and EC Tilgeyer purine derivatives. International Livestock
(1994). Modification of forage quality after Center for Africa. PO Box 5689, Addis Abadan,
harvest. In: Forage Quality, Evaluation and Ethiopia. Animal Production 57(3): 429-436.
Utilisation (Ed. G. C. Fahey). American Society
of Agronomy, Inc, Madison, USA. pp: 922-966. Rehrahie M and K Getu (2010). Effect of feeding
urea treated wheat straw-based diet on
Gupta PK, SD Sharma and IS Agarwal (2003). biological performances and economic benefits
Optimization of urea treatment of wheat straw of lactating Boran-Friesian crossbred dairy cows.
and effect of feeding urea treated paddy straw Livestock Research for Rural Development
on intake and digestibility of nutrients. Dept. 22(12): 301-308.
Anim. Sci., College of Agriculture, G. B. Pant
Univ. Agril. and Technol., Indian Journal of Rehrahie M and I Ledin (2004). Assessment of the
Animal Nutrition 19(3):221-226. Treatment and the Use of Urea Treated Straw
for Cattle Feeding in Selale. Central Ethiopia.
Hemme T, G Garcia and AR Khan (2004). A Review Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 4(1): 23-
of Milk Production in Bangladesh with Particular 32.
Emphasis on Small-Scale Producers. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), website at: Saadullah M, M Haque and F Dolberg (1981).
http://www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html.http://www.th Treated and untreated rice straw for growing
edailyrecords.com/2018-2019-2020- cattle. Tropical Animal Production 7: 20-25.
2021/world-famous-top-10-list/world/largest-
rice-producing-countries-world/6558/ Tolera A and F Sundstol (2000). Supplementation of
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the- graded levels of desmodiumintortum hay to
countries-producing-the-most-rice-in-the- sheep feeding on maize stover harvested at
world.html three stages of maturity. 2. Rumen
fermentation and nitrogen metabolism. Animal
Islam MA (1989). Effect of different methods of urea Feed Science and Technology 87(3-4):215-229.
incorporation in straw based diets on intake,
feed digestibility and growth rate of buffalo Uddin MM, A Akter, ABM Khaleduzzaman and MN
calves. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Animal Sultana (2020). Forecasting milk production in
Nutrition, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh towards achieving self-sufficiency.
Mymensingh. Livestock Research for Rural Development 35
(5)2020.
Khan KS and N Sarker (2014). Feeds and feeding of http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd32/5/moham32081.htm
livestock in Bangladesh: performance, l
constraints and options forward. Bangladesh
Journal of Animal Science 43: 1-10. Uddin MM, T Hemme, OA Ndambi, MN Sultana and
MJ Khan (2017). Impact of dairy support
Mathur (MC) and VV Sharma (1985). Feed intake, services and strategies on reduction of cost of
digestibility and nitrogen retention in cross-bred milk production in different dairy production
heifers fed water soaked straw rations. Indian systems in Bangladesh: Implications for rural
Journal of Animal Science 55(3):218-220. livelihood improvement. Asian Journal of
Poverty Studies 3(2): 95 – 104.
Miah AG, U Salma, MAS Khan and ML Ali (2000).
Effect of urea-molasses multinutrients- blocks Uddin MM, MN Sultana and KJ Peters (2013).
on the productive performance of indigenous Participatory Rural Appraisal to characterize
cows. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science dairy production systems in Bangladesh.
29:135–142. Livestock Research for Rural Development 25(2)
2013.http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/2/uddi25029.h
Misra AK, UR Mehra and RS Dass (2006). tm
Assessment of feeding urea ammoniated wheat
straw on growth performance feed intake and Uddin MM (2011). Possibilities for Further
nutrient utilization in cross bred calves reared Development of Market-oriented Dairy
under stall fed or grazing condition. Livestock Production Systems in Bangladesh. Koster,
research for rural development 18(11):221-228. ISBN-13: 9783895747724.
Narayan D, K Sharma and U Naulia (2004).
Nutritional evaluation of lentil straw and urea
treated wheat straw in goats and lactating
buffaloes. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal
Science 17(11): 1529-1534.

62

View publication stats