See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/280690943
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance,
Milk Production and Composition in Sahiwal Cows
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India - Section B: Biological Sciences · July 2015
DOI: 10.1007/s40011-015-0616-8
CITATIONS READS
5 402
5 authors, including:
Ranjan Kumar Mohanta
Central Rice Research Institute
61 PUBLICATIONS 355 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Bypass fat for dairy ruminants - which one to opt and why? View project
Supplementation of mineral mixture and common salt at critical periods of life of dairy cows to augment productivity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ranjan Kumar Mohanta on 26 July 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci.
DOI 10.1007/s40011-015-0616-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility,
Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production and Composition in Sahiwal
Cows
Brij Kishor Singh1 • Ramesh Chandra Chopra1 • Sacchida Nanda Rai1 •
Mahendra Pratap Verma1 • Ranjan Kumar Mohanta1,2
Received: 14 December 2014 / Revised: 28 April 2015 / Accepted: 6 July 2015
The National Academy of Sciences, India 2015
Abstract Twelve lactating Sahiwal cows were divided Keywords Seaweed Nutrient digestibility
into three equal groups on the basis of milk yield (mean Milk production Sahiwal cows
8.39 L/day), parity and body weight. All the animals were
fed concentrate mixture along with wheat straw and green
oats (Concentrate mixture and roughages as 50:50; green Introduction
oat and wheat straw as 60:40) as total mixed ration for
126 days. While group T1 was fed ration consisting of Global livestock population currently stands at 1426, 195,
concentrate mixture without any additional mineral mix- 1093 and 924 millions for cattle, buffalo, sheep and goat,
ture and common salt, group T2 had 2 % mineral mixture which will further increase due to continuous demand for
and 1 % salt in their concentrate mixture and group T3 had livestock products [1]. This huge population has to sustain
20 % seaweed (Sargassum wightii) in their concentrate with adequate feed ingredients in developed counties,
mixture without additional mineral mixture and salt. A whereas they face huge shortage of feeds and supplements
metabolism trial of 7 days collection period was conducted in developing and poor countries. The cost of conventional
on all the experimental animals after 56 days of experi- feeds and more particularly the mineral ingredients is also
ment. The results showed that there were no significant high and increasing day-by-day [2]. Therefore, the shift in
changes in nutrient intake and digestibility of dry matter, attention goes to the byproducts and non-conventional feed
organic matter, crude protein, crude fibre and ether extract. ingredients. Aquatic plants like seaweeds are the classic
Similarly, there were no significant changes in milk com- example of this type of feed resources, which are available
position (protein, fat, lactose, solid-not-fat) in different in coastal areas even during draught period [3]. These
treatment groups. However, seaweed supplemented group autotrophic large marine multicellular, multicolor algae
had significantly (P \ 0.05) higher milk yield and 4 % fat that grow almost exclusively in the shallow water at the
corrected milk yield than the other groups. Thus, incor- edge of all the oceans accumulate on certain coastal zones
poration of brown seaweed in the diet of lactating Sahiwal in certain seasons each year.
cows to the extent of 20 % in concentrate mixture Seaweeds have high carbohydrate, protein, fiber, vita-
increased their milk yield. min, and mineral contents [4–6]. High mineral content
makes it a potential additive to animal feedstuffs for
replacing a part or whole of the mineral supplementation.
Seaweed also contains many biologically active com-
pounds such as fucoidan, betaine, and glucans [7, 8] which
& Ranjan Kumar Mohanta enhance animal’s immunity [9] and carcass quality [10]. In
mohanta.ranjan@gmail.com
growing rabbits, dietary seaweed supplementation
1
Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division, National Dairy Research improved live weight gain, feed conversion ratio, and the
Institute, Karnal 132001, India economic efficiency [11]. Similarly, seaweed feeding met
2
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Central Rice Research Institute, nutritive requirement of sheep [12]. In view of these facts,
Cuttack 753006, India the present experiment was conducted to compare the
123
B. K. Singh et al.
effect of replacing the mineral mixture of concentrate (Sargassum wightii) in their concentrate mixture without
mixture by seaweed supplementation in the diet on nutrient additional mineral mixture and salt (Table 1). All the cows
utilization and production performance in cows. were fed individually to meet their nutritional requirement
[13]. Concentrate mixture, wheat straw and green oats
fodder were offered in the form of TMR at 9.00 A.M. in
Material and Methods morning and at 4.00 P.M. in evening daily. Clean drinking
water was offered individually thrice a day ad lib. at the
Animals, Grouping and Management time of milking, i.e. 6 A.M., 12 noon and 6 P.M. Dry
matter (DM) intake of each animal was recorded fort-
Twelve lactating Sahiwal cows (345.4 ± 9.7 kg body nightly for five consecutive days during which weighed
weight) in their first or second calving (mean 1.7) and early amount of concentrate mixture, wheat straw and oats fod-
lactation (average 55.8 days post calving) were selected der were offered daily and the residue was collected after
from the dairy herd, National Dairy Research Institute, 24 h. The animals were weighed before the start of
Karnal and divided randomly into three equal groups on the experiment and thereafter at fortnightly intervals. Milk
basis of their milk yield, parity and body weight. Animals samples were also collected at fortnightly intervals from
were fed concentrate mixture along with wheat straw and morning, noon and evening milking and pooled in pro-
green oats (concentrate mixture and roughages as 50:50; portion to their yield for chemical composition analysis.
green oat and wheat straw as 60:40) as total mixed ration
(TMR) for 126 days of feeding trial. While cows in T1 Metabolism Trial
group were offered ration consisting of concentrate mixture
without any additional mineral mixture and common salt, A metabolism trial of 7 days collection period was con-
group T2 had 2 % mineral mixture and 1 % salt in their ducted on all the experimental animals after 56 days of trial
concentrate mixture and group T3 had 20 % seaweed after proper adaptation. The body weight of the animals
Table 1 Ingredients and chemical composition of feeds and fodders offered to cows
Parameters Conc I* Conc II* Conc III* Green oat Wheat straw Sargassum wightii
Maize grain 28 36 36 – – –
Wheat bran 38 25 8 – – –
Groundnut cake 22 24 27 – – –
Mustard cake 12 12 9 – – –
Seaweed (S. wightii) 0 0 20 – – –
Mineral mixture* 0 2 0 – – –
Common salt 0 1 0 – – –
Chemical composition (% DM basis)
Organic matter 95.0 93.1 90.0 86.1 90.9 68.0
Crude protein 21.5 21.4 21.9 9.94 3.67 10.1
Ether extract 5.96 5.91 5.42 2.85 1.47 1.10
Crude fibre 9.24 9.09 10.2 26.9 40.7 11.3
Neutral detergent fibre 35.9 34.0 35.6 48.4 80.1 45.9
Acid detergent fibre 16.1 14.5 19.2 29.3 51.8 34.3
Ash 4.98 6.95 10.0 13.9 9.11 32.0
Acid insoluble ash 0.23 0.28 1.66 5.29 4.45 3.57
Calcium (g/kg) 6.64 8.83 9.80 3.09 1.96 19.8
Phosphorus (g/kg) 4.50 5.90 4.30 3.80 1.70 2.00
Copper (mg/kg) 24.6 55.8 19.5 22.3 21.3 13.4
Iron (mg/kg) 172 183 349 473 148 390
Zinc (mg/kg) 60.1 67.7 53.8 24.8 6.8 10.3
Manganese (mg/kg) 58.5 62.2 63.2 89.2 42.4 55.3
* Conc I, Conc II and Conc III refer to concentrate mixture offered to control group (negative control, T1), added mineral mixture (positive
control, T2), seaweed group (T3), respectively
123
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production…
was recorded before and after the metabolism trial. Faeces, Statistical Analysis
urine and milk were collected on 24 h basis along with the
feed offered and orts. DM was recorded by drying in a hot Data were statistically analysed by one-way analysis of
air oven [14], pooled for all the days of collection, ground variance technique using SPSS software (version 20.0,
to pass 1 mm sieve and kept in airtight containers for IBM SPSS Inc, USA) in accordance with Snedecor and
further analysis. Cochran [17].
Analytical Techniques
Results and Discussion
The dried and ground representative samples of concen-
trate mixtures, green fodder, orts and faeces from each cow Intake and Utilization of Nutrients
were analyzed for proximate [14] and cell wall constituents
[15]. The values were expressed inclusive of ash. Milk The intake and digestibility of different nutrients by cows
samples were analyzed for fat, protein, lactose and solid- in different treatment groups are presented in Table 2 and
not-fat (SNF), using precalibrated Milk Analyzer (Lac- DM intake at fortnightly intervals in Fig. 1. It revealed that
toStar, FUNKE GERBER, Article No 3510, Berlin). Fat intake of nutrients (kg) like DM, digestible crude protein,
corrected milk (4 % FCM) was calculated by Tyrrell and digestible crude fibre, digestible ether extract and total
Reid method [16]. digestible nutrients was statistically similar (P [ 0.05) in
Table 2 Digestibility of nutrients, balance of nitrogen and plane of nutrition in different groups
Parameters Treatments
T1 T2 T3
Body weight, kg 338.9 ± 18.7 369.6 ± 13.4 334.2 ± 16.5
Dry matter intake (kg/d) 9.28 ± 1.4 9.76 ± 0.8 9.55 ± 0.7
Nutrient digestibility (%)
Dry matter 67.0 ± 1.1 63.9 ± 1.7 67.7 ± 1.9
Organic matter 69.3 ± 1.0 65.5 ± 1.8 69.3 ± 1.7
Crude protein 66.6 ± 2.5 67.1 ± 2.6 67.0 ± 1.6
Ether extract 67.9 ± 1.6 64.5 ± 2.4 64.6 ± 1.3
Crude fibre 63.9 ± 2.3 63.4 ± 1.5 64.3 ± 2.5
Nitrogen free extract 71.3 ± 1.0 68.9 ± 1.5 72.9 ± 1.5
Nitrogen balance (g/d)
Nitrogen intake 201.9 ± 37.4 207.8 ± 21.9 204.7 ± 20.6
Nitrogen outgo in faeces 65.0 ± 9.0 66.0 ± 7.1 68.6 ± 10.4
Nitrogen outgo in urine 74.9 ± 8.6 79.6 ± 7.2 78.2 ± 2.0
Nitrogen outgo in milk 48.2 ± 14.6 49.8 ± 8.7 45.2 ± 9.2
Total nitrogen outgo 188.1 ± 30.7 195.4 ± 11.3 192.1 ± 20.0
Nitrogen absorbed 62.0 ± 19.8 62.3 ± 7.7 57.8 ± 8.2
Nitrogen balance 13.8 ± 6.8 12.5 ± 13.6 12.6 ± 2.4
Nitrogen absorption as % intake 66.6 ± 2.2 66.1 ± 2.2 67.0 ± 1.4
Nitrogen balance as % intake 6.82 ± 3.2 6.0 ± 5.3 6.2 ± 1.2
Plane of nutrition
Dry matter intake (kg/100 kg BW) 2.73 ± 0.41 2.64 ± 0.17 2.89 ± 0.29
Dry matter intake (g/W0.75) 117.7 ± 17.4 115.7 ± 7.6 123.3 ± 11.3
Digestible crude protein intake (g/day) 856 ± 183 867 ± 119 850 ± 64
0.75
Digestible crude protein intake, (g/W ) 10.9 ± 2.4 10.2 ± 1.2 11.0 ± 1.0
Total digestible nutrients intake, kg/day 6.02 ± 0.86 6.17 ± 0.61 6.07 ± 0.35
Total digestible nutrients intake (kg/100 kg BW) 1.78 ± 0.27 1.67 ± 0.13 1.83 ± 0.14
Total digestible nutrients intake (g/kg W0.75) 76.5 ± 11.2 73.0 ± 5.9 78.1 ± 5.3
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive
control) and seaweed group, respectively
123
B. K. Singh et al.
different groups irrespective of treatments (Table 2). treatment groups. As evident from the data (Table 2) the N
However, Leupp et al. [18] found positive effects on DM balance (g/day) as percent of N intake and percent of N
intake when brown seaweed meal was included in the diet absorbed during metabolism trial was statistically similar
of steers fed low-quality hay. Similar to authors’ findings, among different treatment groups. In contrast, inclusion of
feeding of seaweed extract (Gracilaria spp.) did not affect A. nodosum extract numerically reduced N digestion and
the DM intake in lactating cross-bred cows when fed 0, 10 retention in pigs [23].
and 20 g of seaweed extract per day in different treatment
groups [19]. Similarly, brown seaweed (Undaria pinnati- Milk Production and Composition
fida) supplementation (800 g/day) in diets of dairy cows
had no significant effect on DM intake [20]. In a similar The average initial daily milk yield at the beginning of the
experiment, supplementation of Laminaria hyperborea or experiment in treatment groups T1, T2 and T3 was
L. digitata seaweed extracts alone or in combination did 8.43 ± 2.03, 8.30 ± 1.11 and 8.43 ± 1.55 kg/day respec-
not have any effect on feed intake in weaned pigs [21]. No tively and the corresponding values at the end of experi-
adverse effect of the brown seaweed waste (4 % of diet) ment were 6.25 ± 1.93, 6.51 ± 0.79 and 8.59 ± 1.82
supplementation on DM intake was found in Holstein dairy kg/day, respectively. There was a decreasing trend in milk
cows for 90 days [22]. yield with the passage of time, indicating that there may be
The digestibility coefficients of various nutrients in certain unidentified natural bioactive substances in sea-
lactating Sahiwal cows, fed three types of concentrate weed (T3) which might be responsible for increased milk
mixtures along with wheat straw and green oats, were also production and high sustainability than T2 (2 % mineral
statistically insignificant (P [ 0.05) indicating that feeding mixture and 1 % salt) and T1 (Fig. 2) groups. The FCM
of Sargassum wightii in the concentrate diet to the extent of
20 % had no significant effect on nutrient intake and their
digestibility coefficients. Similar digestibility of different 10
nutrients in swine diet was also reported on inclusion of
Ascophyllum nodosum (an edible brown macroalga) extract 8
Milk yield (kg/day)
[23]. However, positive effects on organic matter
digestibility by brown seaweed meal inclusion were 6
T1
observed in steers fed low-quality hay [18]. In a similar T2
4
experiment, supplementation of L. hyperborea or L. digi- T3
tata seaweed extracts alone or in combination did not affect 2
digestibility of different nutrients in weaned pigs [21].
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Effect on Nitrogen Balance Fortnight of experiment
The intake of nitrogen (N), its outgo through faeces, urine Fig. 2 Fortnightly milk yield (kg/day) in Sahiwal cows in different
and milk as well as N absorption and balance (g/day) did groups. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added
mineral mixture (positive control) and seaweed group, respectively
not show any significant difference (P [ 0.05) among the
12
12
Fat corrected milk (kg/day)
10
Dry matter intake (kg/day)
10
8
8
6 T1
6 T1 T2
T2 4
T3
4
T3
2
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fortnights
Fortnight of experiment
Fig. 3 Fortnightly 4 % fat corrected milk production (kg/day) in
Fig. 1 Dry matter intake of animals at different fortnights. T1, T2 Sahiwal cows. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative
and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral control), added mineral mixture (positive control) and seaweed group,
mixture (positive control) and seaweed group, respectively respectively
123
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production…
Table 3 Milk production and composition in Sahiwal cows of different groups
Parameters T1 T2 T3
Average milk yield (kg/d) 7.30a ± 2.30 7.86b ± 1.26 8.75c ± 1.50
a b
Average 4 % fat corrected milk yield (kg/d) 8.40 ± 2.51 9.30 ± 1.52 10.36 ± 1.75c
Milk composition (%)
Total solids 14.2 ± 0.17 14.3 ± 0.19 14.3 ± 0.18
Fat 5.33 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.16 5.37 ± 0.17
Protein 3.27 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.03
Lactose 4.87 ± 0.08 4.93 ± 0.09 4.89 ± 0.08
Solids not fat 8.91 ± 0.03 8.90 ± 0.04 8.93 ± 0.04
Means with different superscripts in a row for a parameter differ significantly (P \ 0.05). Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1,
T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive control) and seaweed group, respectively
Table 4 Fortnightly milk fat and protein content (%) in Sahiwal cows
Fortnight Fat (%) Protein (%)
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
1 4.94 ± 0.21 5.22 ± 0.12 5.13 ± 0.18 3.19 ± 0.04 3.30 ± 0.01 3.37 ± 0.07
2 4.83 ± 0.31 5.15 ± 0.28 5.33 ± 0.14 3.18 ± 0.05 3.26 ± 0.03 3.31 ± 0.08
3 5.17 ± 0.13 4.96 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.21 3.13 ± 0.03 3.29 ± 0.01 3.30 ± 0.01
4 5.02 ± 0.17 4.88 ± 0.25 4.97 ± 0.22 3.24 ± 0.02 3.26 ± 0.02 3.26 ± 0.03
5 5.37 ± 0.16 5.44 ± 0.20 5.23 ± 0.17 3.30 ± 0.01 3.30 ± 0.28 3.24 ± 0.02
6 5.47 ± 0.16 5.51 ± 0.21 5.47 ± 0.23 3.35 ± 0.01 3.34 ± 0.02 3.32 ± 0.03
7 5.69 ± 0.12 5.71 ± 0.09 5.76 ± 0.10 3.34 ± 0.04 3.37 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.02
8 5.77 ± 0.12 5.80 ± 0.05 5.60 ± 0.18 3.36 ± 0.01 3.42 ± 0.02 3.39 ± 0.01
9 5.71 ± 0.10 5.75 ± 0.12 5.50 ± 0.14 3.31 ± 0.03 3.38 ± 0.02 3.37 ± 0.02
Mean 5.33 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.16 5.37 ± 0.17 3.27 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.03
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive
control) and seaweed group, respectively
Table 5 Fortnightly total solids and solids not fat (%) in milk of different groups
Fortnights Total solids (%) Solids not fat (%)
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
1 13.76 ± 0.21 13.98 ± 0.24 13.99 ± 0.22 8.83 ± 0.05 8.75 ± 0.12 8.85 ± 0.05
2 13.57 ± 0.33 14.04 ± 0.33 14.24 ± 0.13 8.74 ± 0.04 8.89 ± 0.06 8.90 ± 0.05
3 13.94 ± 0.15 13.82 ± 0.19 14.25 ± 0.26 8.77 ± 0.03 8.85 ± 0.05 8.87 ± 0.07
4 13.90 ± 0.19 13.73 ± 0.27 13.93 ± 0.15 8.87 ± 0.08 8.84 ± 0.04 8.95 ± 0.05
5 14.35 ± 0.15 14.30 ± 0.20 14.10 ± 0.14 8.97 ± 0.04 8.86 ± 0.03 8.88 ± 0.04
6 14.47 ± 0.14 14.43 ± 0.23 14.38 ± 0.25 9.00 ± 0.03 8.92 ± 0.04 8.90 ± 0.05
7 14.69 ± 0.15 14.74 ± 0.10 14.79 ± 0.12 8.99 ± 0.03 9.03 ± 0.01 9.03 ± 0.03
8 14.78 ± 0.13 14.82 ± 0.06 14.63 ± 0.20 9.01 ± 0.04 9.02 ± 0.01 9.03 ± 0.02
9 14.74 ± 0.09 14.73 ± 0.14 14.47 ± 0.16 9.02 ± 0.01 8.98 ± 0.02 8.98 ± 0.04
Mean 14.24 ± 0.17 14.28 ± 0.19 14.30 ± 0.18 8.91 ± 0.03 8.90 ± 0.04 8.93 ± 0.04
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive
control) and seaweed group, respectively
yield also followed similar pattern (Fig. 3). In contrast to affect milk production in cows. It is also reported that
authors’ finding, supplementation of 80 g A. nodo- Sargassum spp. of seaweed can be fed up to the extent of
sum/cow/day [24], hydrolyzed A. nodosum [25] did not 30 % in the concentrate mixture without any significant
123
B. K. Singh et al.
changes in milk yield and FCM production in Kankrej 4. Okab AB, Samara EM, Abdoun KA, Rafay J, Ondruska L, Par-
cows [26]. However, similar to authors’ findings, milk kanyi V, Pivko J, Ayoub MA, Al-Haidary AA, Aljumaah RS,
Peter M, Lukac N (2013) Effects of dietary seaweed (Ulva lac-
production was improved by supplementation of A. nodo- tuca) supplementation on the reproductive performance of buck
sum meal [27] or inclusion of 2 % seaweed-meals and doe rabbits. J Appl Anim Res 41:347–355
(Macrocystis pyrifera) in the concentrate ration in dairy 5. Rey-Crespo F, López-Alonso M, Miranda M (2014) The use of
cows [28]. Increase in milk production was also observed seaweed from the Galician coast as a mineral supplement in
organic dairy cattle. Animal 8:580–586
by brown seaweed waste (4 % of diet) supplementation in 6. Singh BK, Chopra RC, Rai SN, Verma MP, Mohanta RK (2014)
Holstein dairy cows fed for 90 days [22]. Effect of feeding seaweed as mineral source on mineral meta-
Total solids, fat, SNF, lactose and protein content in milk bolism, blood and milk mineral profile in cows. Proc Natl Acad
were similar (P [ 0.05) in all treatment groups from first Sci Sec B Biol Sci. doi:10.1007/s40011-014-0413-9
7. Archer GS, Friend TH, Caldwell D, Ameiss K, Krawczel PD,
fortnight to ninth fortnights and there was no significant dif- Iacono C, Keen H, Martin T (2008) Impacts of feeding several
ference among different treatment groups (Tables 3, 4, 5). components of the seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum on transported
However, in related studies, seaweed feeding increased milk lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 140:258–271
protein and fat content in cows [28], whereas A. nodosum meal 8. Holdt SL, Kraan S (2011) Bioactive compounds in seaweed:
functional food applications and legislation. J Appl Phycol
supplementation increased milk production and milk protein 23:371–393
content in dairy cows [29]. However, similar to authors’ 9. Allen VG, Pond KR, Saker KE, Fontenot JP (2004) U.S. Patent
finding, supplementation of 80 g A. nodosum/cow/day did not No. 6,764,69, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington
affect milk protein and fat production in lactating Holstein 10. Tavasoli HA, Eslami M, Mamouei M, Chaji M, Bojarpour M
(2009) The effect of Tasco (Ascophyllum nodosum) on carcass
cows [24]. Daily milk yield and composition (fat, protein, characteristics of finishing male Arabic lambs. Res J Biol Sci
SNF) were not affected by fermented brown seaweed waste 4:1148–1151
(180 or 360 g; 1–2 % of basal diet) supplementation in Hol- 11. El-Banna SG (2003) Sea algae supplementation of Baladi rabbits
stein dairy cows for 60 days [29], inclusion of hydrolyzed A. diet and its implication on certain biochemical parameters. Pest
Control Environ Sci 11:81–96
nodosum in dairy cows [25] or A. nodosum on heat stressed 12. Hansen HR, Hector BL, Feldmann J (2003) A qualitative and
dairy cows [30]. In another study, it was reported that seaweed quantitative evaluation of the seaweed diet of North Ronaldsay
(Sargassum spp.) can be fed to lactating Kankrej cows without sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol 105:21–28
any significant changes in milk composition up to the level of 13. NRC (2001) Nutrient requirement of dairy cattle, 7th edn. National
Academy Press, National Research Council, Washington
30 % in concentrate mixture [26]. 14. AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis of AOAC interna-
tional, 18th edn. Association of Analytical Communities Inter-
national, Gaithersburg
Conclusion 15. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1967) Forage fibre analysis (appa-
ratus, reagents, procedures, and some application). Agriculture
handbook no. 379, ARS-USDA, Washington
The incorporation of seaweed to the extent of 20 % in the 16. Tyrell HF, Reid JT (1965) Prediction of the energy value of
concentrate mixture of lactating Sahiwal cows enhanced cow’s milk. J Dairy Sci 48:1215–1223
the milk production without increasing feed intake and 17. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1994) Statistical methods, 8th edn.
Iowa University Press, Ames
thereby may safely replace the entire quantity of costly 18. Leupp JL, Caton JS, Soto-Navarro SA, Lardy GP (2005) Effects
mineral mixture and may economize the cost of feeding. of cooked molasses blocks and fermentation extract or brown
seaweed meal inclusion on intake, digestion, and microbial effi-
Acknowledgments The authors thank Deputy Director General of ciency in steers fed low-quality hay. J Anim Sci 83:2938–2945
Fisheries, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New 19. Bobade MD, Anbatkar SV, Khanvilker AV, Pendse MD (1998)
Delhi, India for providing the seaweed for the present research under Effect of feeding seaweed extract on production and composition of
A.P. Cess Project on ‘‘Cattle feed production from selected seaweeds milk in crossbred cows. Indian J Anim Prod Manage 14:189–190
of Indian coast’’. The first author thanks ICAR, New Delhi for pro- 20. Lee SH, Lee HG, Maeng W, Baek IK, Hwang JH (2004) Effects
viding him financial support in the form of Junior Research Fellow- of the brown seaweed residues supplementation on in vitro fer-
ship for his Masters Programme. All authors declare that they have no mentation, milk production and composition of lactating dairy
conflicts of interest. cows. J Anim Sci Technol 46:373–386 (in Korean)
21. Reilly P, O’Doherty JV, Pierce KM, Callan JJ, O’Sullivan JT,
Sweeney T (2008) The effects of seaweed extract inclusion on
gut morphology, selected intestinal microbiota, nutrient
References digestibility, volatile fatty acid concentrations and the immune
status of the weaned pig. Animal 2:1465–1473
1. FAOSTAT (2013) Agricultural production database. Food Agric 22. Lee HG, Lee HJ, Koh TS, Hong ZS, Li ZH, Xu CX, Jin X, Jin
Organ. http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/default.aspx#ancor MG, Choi YJ, Choi NJ (2005) Effect of brown seaweed waste
2. López-Alonso M (2012) Trace minerals and livestock: not too supplementation on lactational performance and endocrine
much not too little. ISRN Vet Sci 2012704825. http://dx.doi. physiology in Holstein lactating cows. J Anim Sci Technol
org/10.5402/2012/704825 47:573–582 (in Korean)
3. Christaki E, Karatzia M, Florou-Paneri P (2010) The use of algae 23. Gardiner GE, Campbell AJ, O’Doherty JV, Pierce E, Lynch PB,
in animal nutrition. J Hellenic Vet Med Soc 61:267–276 Leonard FC, Stanton C, Ross RP, Lawlor PG (2008) Effect of
123
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production…
Ascophyllum nodosum extract on growth performance, (report of progress 941). Kansas State University agricultural
digestibility, carcass characteristics and selected intestinal experiment station and cooperative extension service.
microflora populations of grower-finisher pigs. Anim Feed Sci http://hdl.handle.net/2097/6732. Accessed 31 Jan 2014
Technol 141:259–273 28. Succi G, Zurla F (1967) Effect of adding marine algae to the feed
24. Karatzia M, Christaki E, Bonos E, Karatzias C, Florou-Paneri P of cattle on production and composition of milk. Riv Zootec
(2012) The influence of dietary Ascophyllum nodosum on Agric Vet 5:447
haematologic parameters of dairy cows. Ital J Anim Sci 11(2):e31 29. Hong ZS, Lee ZH, Xu CX, Yin JL, Jin YC, Lee HJ, Lee SB, Choi
25. Cermak B, Hnisova J, Petraskova E, Soch M, Vostooupal B YJ, Lee HG (2010) Effect of fermented brown seaweed waste on
(2011) Influence of chosen stimulants on selected quality ingre- milk production, composition and physiological responses in
dients of cow’s milk and rumen parameters. Anim Sci Biotechnol Holstein dairy cows. J Anim Sci Technol 52:287–296 (in
44:19–23 Korean)
26. Desai MC, Shukla PC (1975) Effect of feeding seaweed to lac- 30. Pompeu LB, Williams JE, Spiers DE, Weaber RL, Ellersieck
tating cows on body weights and milk production. Indian J Anim MR, Sargent KM, Feyerabend NP, Vellios HL, Evans F (2011)
Sci 45:823–827 Effect of Ascophyllum nodosum on alleviation of heat stress in
27. Cvetkovic B, Brouk MJ, Shirley JE (2004) Impact of dried sea- dairy cows. Prof Anim Sci 27:181–189
weed meal on heat stressed lactating dairy cattle. In dairy day
123
View publication stats
