Chapter 7

Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants

Daniel Aquino, Arnel Del Barrio, Nguyen Xuan Trach, Nguyen Thanh Hai,
Duong Nguyen Khang, Nguyen Tat Toan, and Nguyen Van Hung

Abstract Rice straw is a readily available, practical, and cheap source of fodder for
feeding ruminants such as buffaloes, cattle, goats, and sheep. Livestock producers
commonly haul and stack rice straw from their rice farm, which then forms reserved
feed for their animals during lean months or when good-quality roughages are
scarce. The feeding of pure rice straw to ruminants during the stages of fast growth
and early lactation has been shown to affect both body condition score and animal
performance. This is due to lower dry matter intake and protein content (from 4.0%
to 4.7% crude protein) of the straw. The high silica and lignin contents of straw also
contribute to poor nutrient (dry matter and protein) digestibility (<50%). So, pre-
treatment of straw is necessary to enhance its contribution to improving meat and
milk production. Science- and technology-based farm strategies to optimize the
nutritive and feeding values of rice straw had been developed with significant
improvement on intake, nutrient digestibility, and animal performance. These tech-
nologies were also proven effective in contributing additional income to livestock
producers from the sales of milk or live animals. This chapter presents and discusses
current innovations and developed technologies on how the nutritive (nutrient com-
position and fiber fraction) and feeding values of rice straw can be improved.

D. Aquino (*)
Philippine Carabao Center, Central Luzon State University (CLSU), Muñoz, Philippines
e-mail: oed@pcc.gov.ph
A. D. Barrio
Philippine Carabao Center, National Headquarters, Muñoz, Philippines
e-mail: oed@pcc.gov.ph
N. X. Trach
Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam
e-mail: nxtrach@vnua.edu.vn
N. T. Hai · D. N. Khang · N. T. Toan
Nong Lam University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
e-mail: hai.nguyenthanh@hcmuaf.edu.vn; toan.nguyentat@hcmuaf.edu.vn
N. V. Hung
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
e-mail: hung.nguyen@irri.org

© The Author(s) 2020 111

M. Gummert et al. (eds.), Sustainable Rice Straw Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32373-8_7
112 D. Aquino et al.

Specifically, this focuses on pretreatment (optimization process), enrichment, and

recycling of rice straw by physical, chemical, and biological processes. Also c­ overed
are practical feeding protocols when rice straw—or its combination with other feed
ingredients—is used in formulating a ration. The authors also share secondary
information on the effect of rice straw as animal fodder on the improvement in ani-
mal performance and production efficiencies; as well as its impact on food produc-
tion (meat and milk), increasing farmers’ income, and on the protection of the
environment.

Keywords Rice straw · Fodder · Ruminant · Buffaloes

7.1 Introduction

Livestock farming plays a significant role in agricultural development. Aside from

being a source of income for the farmers, livestock also contributes to the produc-
tion of food for the general public. Ruminant animals, such as buffaloes, cattle,
sheep, and goats, are considered economically important in the production of meat
and milk, among other derived products such as hides, manure as an organic fertil-
izer or as fuel/biogas for kitchen use by the livestock-farming families. Ruminants
can be entirely dependent on crops for their nourishment to achieve normal growth,
production, and reproduction. The dynamics of their rumen ecosystem provides a
unique environment for microorganisms to grow and multiply so that these can
degrade nutrients, especially fibrous components, from the ingested fodders that
eventually are transformed into protein rich foodstuffs such as meat and milk.
However, the efficiency of the animal to utilize and convert nutrients from dietary
sources into nutritious food products are dependent mainly on the availability and
quality of the fodder being offered to the animal.
The availability of quality forages for feeding ruminants is seasonal. Wet season
is a time of feed abundance while dry season is a period of scarcity. In countries that
experience feed scarcity or deficiency of good quality forages, rice straw remains as
the practical, abundant and cheap source of fodder for feeding cattle, buffalo, goat
and sheep. According to FAO (2000), the world produced approximately 2000 mil-
lion tons of cereal straw annually. More than 200 million tons of rice straw was also
produced annually in the Southeast Asian countries (see Chap. 1). The estimated
quantity of rice straw production is based on the report of Maiorella (1985); and
Doyle et al. (1986) that for every hectare of rice farm, the weights of rice grain and
rice straw that can be harvested are the same. In many agricultural countries, rice
straw and other agro-industrial by-products are available in large quantities imme-
diately every after harvest seasons. These farm byproducts are utilized in many
different ways such as fodder for ruminants, for mushroom production, for fuel
(heating, biogas) source, for board or paper production and also for organic fertil-
izer production.
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 113

7.2 Rice Straw as a Feed Source

7.2.1 Availability and Carrying Capacity

Rice straw is abundantly produced by rice farmers in many agricultural countries

worldwide. In Southeast Asia, about 30–40% of the total rice straw production is
commonly used to feed more than 90% of the ruminant population in the region
including other countries such as China and Mongolia, (Devendra and Thomas
2002). Rice straw is lean-month stuff to ruminant when supply of good quality for-
ages is inadequate. It can be fed as the sole diet to meet the dry matter requirement
but it is not a guarantee that other essential nutrients needed for normal body func-
tions by the animal are met. Rice straw can also be offered, up to 60%, in combina-
tions with other feed ingredients, such as concentrates, molasses, or legumes to
improve palatability, protein content, and intake and digestibility by the animals.
Every after rice harvest, livestock farmers collect and stock-pile rice straw in a
simple shed usually made from locally available materials or stored in piles out-
doors. The conserved straw is normally used as animal fodder during the lean
months of January through May or when the paddies are already planted with rice
in July and August. The extent of rice straw utilization as fodder is dictated by the
availability of forage gardens as well as the number of animals being fed. Since the
average landholding of the average crop farmer is 1–2 ha, the expected rice straw
production annually is only about from 10 to 15 tons, which can support only three
or four animal units whether cattle or buffalo. If a farmer has more animals, addi-
tional fodder should be sourced out, such as silage, corn stover or hay, or other feed
supplements, such as concentrates or legumes, to achieve normal animal
performance.

7.2.2 Nutrients in Rice Straw

Basically, rice straw has low protein content ranging from 3% to 6%. Is has high cell
walls, the neutral detergent fiber (ADF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) which con-
sisted of the degradable carbohydrate fractions such as starch, cellulose and hemi-
cellulose. It also contains an indigestible phenolic substance called lignin. When
used as fodder, rice straw primarily serves as bulk or filler to meet the dry matter
requirement of ruminants. This contains 80% substances which are potentially
degradable and a source of energy. It has high dry matter (DM) contents of 92–96%
but with a low CP content ranging from 3% to 7% (Shen et al. 1998). The lignin and
silica contents provide structure to the rice plant during the growing and fruiting
stage but these components are in an indigestible form when ingested by animals.
As fodder, rice straw has low energy and protein contents. Its utilization is lim-
ited due to minimal contents of digestible nutrients and various characteristics such
as palatability, variable nutritional values, high silica and oxalates, and sometimes
114 D. Aquino et al.

presence of adulterants when not properly collected and stored. Nevertheless, rice
straw still remains to be a practical fodder particularly in times of El Nino or in
times of critical periods when sources of fresh fodders are insufficient. In addition,
according to a dairy cow nutrient expert from Israel (Hanan Saggi, Feeding &
Nutrition Director, TH True Milk Group), rice straw is a good feed component if
pretreated properly, particularly when the milk cows are not producing fully.
Rice straw contains higher quantities of potassium (1.58% of DM), calcium
(0.53%), and magnesium (0.24%). But it is low in phosphorus (0.12%), sodium
(0.13%), iron (0.07%), and manganese (0.07%), (Shen et al. 1998). The bio-­
availability of these minerals is still to be investigated since most of these minerals
are cross-linked to other substances in rice straw in the form of acid-insoluble ash.
The phosphorus (0.02–0.16%) content of rice straw is not sufficient to meet the
required 0.3% for growth and normal fertility of animals (Jackson 1977). However,
its calcium content of 0.4% is considered adequate to meet the daily requirement for
livestock but this does not always hold true. The bioavailability of calcium from rice
straw is important to consider since the report of Nath et al. (1969) showed that
cattle fed with rice straw has a negative calcium balance even though the calcium
content of the straw used in the feeding experiment was apparently adequate. In
similar experiments by Joshi and Talapatra (1968), they have higher positive cal-
cium balances with animals fed with wheat straw and sorghum stover diets than on
rice straw diets, even though the calcium intake on rice straw diets was higher.
According to the authors, when feeding rice straw, it is safe to provide calcium
supplementation to the animals.

7.2.3 Rice Straw Intake by Ruminants

Generally, the quantity of rice straw that the animal can eat each day is limited to
less than 2% of its body weight. According to the report of Devendra (1997), the
amount of rice straw that ruminants can consume can be as high as 1.2 kg DM
100 kg−1 of live weight day−1. The rice straw intake, however, varies among animals
and this is also influenced by the proportion or parts of the rice straw used in the
ration. The intake of rice straw also varies according to the manner in which it is
prepared, processed, and fed to the animals. Physical processing, such as chopping
or the use of chemical or microbiological treatments, considerably improves an ani-
mal’s rice straw intake. When offered as is, rice straw intake is lower because it is
bulky or occupies more space in the rumen. The digestibility of the straw is also
affected due to the slow passage rate of ingested straw and its fermentation by
microorganisms in the rumen. Chopping the straw provides more space in the rumen
and allows more entries of microorganisms to ferment the straw’s degradable
components.
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 115

7.2.4 Nutrient Digestibility of Rice Straw

The leaf and stem ratio is essential when it comes to the digestibility of cereal straw.
Relatively, rice straw has a higher proportion of leaves at 60% compared with other
cereal straw, such as barley (35%) and oats (43%) (Sarnklong et al. 2010; Theander
and Aman 1984). Having this high proportion of leaves to stems promotes lower
in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of the leaves at 50–51% compared to the
stems at 61% (Vadiveloo 2000). These data were supported by Phang and Vadiveloo
(1992) who observed that, in goats, IVDMD for rice leaves is 56.2% while for stems
is at 68.5%. To increase the degradability of rice straw leaves, pretreating them with
4% urea solution for 21 days shows significant increase in the IVDMD of the leaves
compared with the stems (Vadiveloo 2000). This improvement of the feeding value
of rice straw should be taken into consideration to optimize digestibility.
Rice straw, when offered to ruminants, gave DM digestibility ranging from 45 to
50%. Various enzymes secreted in the reiculo-rumen, such as glucanase, cellulase,
and hemi-cellulase—not including ligninase—have the potential capacity to degrade
the cell wall components of rice straw, (Schiere and Ibrahim 1989). These enzymes
are not produced by the animals themselves but are secreted by the rumen microor-
ganisms. The degree of lignification or with higher the lignin content, this has a
direct effect on the reduction of the rice straw’s nutrient digestibility. In addition,
Agbagla-Dohnani et al. (2003) pointed out that silica has a direct effect on cell wall
digestibility of rice straw since silica forms a physical barrier that lowers microbial
degradation resulting to poor enzymatic hydrolysis of the straw.

7.3 Pretreatment of Rice Straw as Ruminant Fodder

Developed technologies have been published and are available for farmers to help
them enhance the utilization and improvement of the nutritive value of rice straw for
animal feeding. These techniques include different physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal processing methods and combinations of these (Ibrahim 1983). However, adop-
tion of these technologies takes time since they require additional inputs and farmers
need to see improvement to believe it.

7.3.1 Physical Processes

The physical process is a practical and inexpensive method to enhance utilization

and recycling of nutrients from rice straw when used as fodder for ruminants.
Physical treatment of rice straw aims to improve the palatability and increase intake
as well as improve the potential digestibility of ruminants. These physical processes
include soaking, grinding or chopping, pelleting, steaming pressure, and gamma
116 D. Aquino et al.

irradiation. These processes promote physical changes in rice straw, such as reduc-
ing particle size, which lessens rumination time for the animal; enriching softness
of the straw’s fibrous components to make it more palatable to the animal; and
hastening nutrient digestion.
Soaking is a common and economical process of treating rice straw. This is being
done by soaking straw overnight in water which brings softness between the of
lignin and cellulose component of rice straw. Soaking of straw promotes higher
intake of the animal as well as nutrients digestibility. Soaking along with steaming
technique have direct effect on the cell walls delignification of rice straw, (Walker
1984). The effect of steam or exposure of the lignocellulosic contents of rice straw
under high pressure provides a good environment for the microbial enzymes for
faster fermentation of nutrients, thus increasing the rice straw digestibility (Walker
1984). Milstein et al. (1987) suggested that heat treatment leads to an increase in
cellulose digestibility from 20% to 40%.
Grinding, chopping or pelleting had beneficial effects in breaking down the cell
wall contents of rice straw. These physical processes reduced the particle size of the
straw thus, providing easy entries or access of the rumen microorganisms for degra-
dation. The use of these techniques should properly consider the balance between
the particle size and the retention time or passage rate of the ingested treated straw.
The reduction in particles due to grinding or chopping of rice straw promotes ani-
mal intake and increase passage rate of the feed, however, this brings negative effect
in terms of decreasing the nutrients digestibility of straw. This is because of the less
time exposure of the feed materials for rumination and for microbial fermentation
in the rumen.
Pressure steaming rice straw is another process to consider. However, the process
may add cost for farmers due to the energy required during process. Rangnekar
et al. (1982) and Liu et al. (1999) have tried steam treatment under high pressure of
15 bar for 5 min at a moisture level varying between 30% and 70% (w/w) using dif-
ferent roughages and rice straw. They observed that the different fractions of rice
straw, such as hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin, and sugars were separated by steam
pressure. Similar observations were also reported by Ooshima et al. (1984) when
irradiated rice straw was subjected to 84% water content in microwaves (2450 MHz)
using sealed glass vessels with accessible partitions into cellulosic materials and
with increase digestible nutrients of the straw.

7.3.2 Chemical Treatment

The chemical method to improve the nutritive value of rice straw has been done for
more than 100 years (Kamstra et al. 1958) with the aim to increase animals’ intake
and feed digestibility. The chemicals, which are commonly studied and used in
treating rice straw to improve its palatability, intake, and digestibility, are sodium
hydroxide, ammonia, and urea. The mode of action of these chemicals is to break
the links between the lignin-cellulose structures of the straw, which are sensitive
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 117

under alkaline or acidic conditions. Among the chemicals used, alkali agents are
extensively explored and practically accepted under farm conditions. During straw
treatment, basic chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide, urea, or ammonia are
absorbed into the cell wall and react with the lingo-cellulosic contents of the straw
to break the ester bonds between lignin and hemicellulose and cellulose. The alkali
absorbed into the straw directly causes the structural fibers to swell making it free
for microbial fermentation (Chenost and Kayouli 1997; Lam et al. 2001).

7.3.2.1 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) Treatment

The use of NaOH in the treatment of cereal straw has been done since the 1940s
(Mcanally 1942). The straw is treated using 1.5% NAOH w/w for 24 h in a con-
tainer. The treated straw is rinsed with cold water and subjected to in vitro digest-
ibility. Results showed that the NAOH treated straw is more digestible than the pure
straw by as much as 28%. The Beckman method, which is similar to the procedures
of Mcanally (1942) for the NAOH treatment of straw, has been recommended by
FAO (2012). The Beckman method also uses 1.5% NAOH but the treatment period
is within 18–20 h before rinsing with tap water. The NAOH acts on the straw by
reducing proteolysis and increasing delignification by unlocking the linkage
between the lignin and cellulosic contents of the straw to give more time for micro-
bial enzymatic action to take place. Treatment of rice straw and other crop residues
using NAOH has been reviewed by Jackson (1977), Berger et al. (1994), Arieli
(1997), and Wang et al. (2004). These authors concluded that chemical reactions of
NAOH on the cell wall contents of rice straw is advantageous for the breakdown of
the esterified bonds between the phenols group and the cellulosic components of
straw thus favoring the enzymatic hydrolysis.
Feeding NAOH-treated straw in cattle showed better performance than ammonia
treatment of straw. Similar improvement in animal performance was also reported
by Chaudhry and Miller (1996) and Vadiveloo (2000) when NAOH-treated rice
straw was fed to cattle compared to untreated straw. This was due to the improve-
ment in palatability and intake of the animals and increase in digestibility of treated
straw. The adoption of NaOH treatment of rice straw, however; is not widely prac-
ticed by farmers. This is because NAOH costs more than urea treatment and it is not
always available. In addition, NaOH, when used at higher concentrations, poses
health problems for animals if the amount exceeds 10 g of the daily sodium require-
ment of mature animals. It can also cause pollution problems due to sodium accu-
mulation in the environment (Sundstol and Coxworth 1984).

7.3.2.2 Ammonia (NH3) Treatment of Rice Straw

Treating rice straw using anhydrous and aqueous ammonia, urea, and other
ammonia-­releasing substances have been investigated and have been proven to
enhance the degradability of the straw (Abou-EL-Enin et al. 1999; Selim et al. 2004;
118 D. Aquino et al.

Fadel-Elseed et al. 2003). The treatment of rice straw with ammonia (NH3) is simi-
lar to treating with NaOH. NH3 has been observed to be advantageous over the use
of NAOH because it is readily available because it can be derived from the hydroly-
sis of urea. NH3 treatment does not only increase degradability of rice straw but it
also supplies nitrogen (Abou-EL-Enin et al. 1999), thereby increasing the protein
content of the straw. It can also be used as a preservative agent since it inhibits the
growth of molds in the treated straw (Calzado and Rolz 1990). Other benefits that
can be derived from NH3 treatment include reducing costs of buying protein-rich
supplements and enhancing acceptability and voluntary intake of the treated straw
by ruminants.
Liu et al. (2002) observed that the use of NAOH treatment is more efficient than
NH3 treatment in terms of improving the energy values of the straw. However; using
NH3 is usually more profitable for farmers than NAOH because it provides an addi-
tional source of nitrogen in the straw. Selim et al. (2004) studied sheep fed with
NH3-treated rice straw packed in polyethylene bags for 4 weeks with gaseous
ammonia (3 g NH3 100 g dry matter−1). NH3 increased the N content of the treated
rice straw from 8.16 to 18.4 g kg−1 or with an equivalent increase of CP from 51 to
115 g kg−1. A slight decrease in the NDF of treated straw (from 571 to 551 g kg−1)
was observed but with an increase in acid detergent fiber (ADF) from 303 to
327 g kg−1. This further indicated positive changes on the cell wall content of the
treated straw.

7.3.2.3 Urea Treatment

Urea treatment is the most practical and widely used chemical method in treating
rice straw. It is adoptable by both small-scale and commercial livestock farms. The
main function of urea is to increase the protein content of the treated straw during
the fermentation process. Urea or NH3 is best used in combination with molasses
(urea-molasses solution) at 30% moisture content of the treated straw. First, urea is
hydrolyzed or undergoes ureolysis to produce ammonia-nitrogen (Sahnounea et al.
1991). The role of the molasses is to supply energy so that cellulosic fermentation
of the treated straw is hastened. Urea or its combination with molasses can make
rice straw a complete and safe basal ration for ruminants (Langar et al. 1985).
Rice straw can be effectively treated with urea using different concentrations i. e.
from 1% to 5% w/w. Urea should be dissolved first in water at the desired propor-
tion and it can be sprayed into the rice straw. The treated straw can be packed in the
silo, empty drum or plastic bag. This treatment process is practical and can be easily
adopted by farmers. Urea is a chemical which is a source of nitrogen to crops and a
source of non-protein nitrogen to ruminants. It is a crystalline substance and it is
easy to handle and locally available in the market, (Sundstøl and Coxworth 1984).
Urea increases the nitrogen (crude protein or CP) content of the treated rice straw,
(Schiere and Ibrahim 1989). It is cheaper than NaOH or pure NH3. Vadiveloo (2003)
reported that treating different rice varieties with low degradable carbohydrates
responded positively compared to high-quality rice straw varieties after urea
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 119

t­ reatments as reflected by the increase in IVDMD from 45% to 55–62%. Numerous

evaluations were done in the laboratory (Reddy 1996; Shen et al. 1998; Vadiveloo
2003) or in field trials (Prasad et al. 1998; Vu et al. 1999; Akter et al. 2004) in treat-
ment of rice straw using pure urea or in combination with other chemicals or feed
supplements and the results had clear improvement on the nutritive as well as feed-
ing value of treated straw.

7.3.2.4 Lime Treatment

Treatment of straw with lime solution [CaO/Ca(OH)2] is expected to have the same
effect on improving fiber degradability as NAOH. Lime is also a source of calcium
for ruminants in low-calcium rations but it has longer solubility in water compared
to NAOH or urea. Treatment of straw with lime can be done in two ways: by soaking
and ensiling. Lime treatment provides complementary effects in combination with
urea. The combination of lime and urea has been shown an advantage in increasing
degradability and incrementing both the calcium and nitrogen contents of the treated
straw (Nguyen 2000).
In a separate study of Pradhan et al. (1997), using 4% or 6% Ca(OH)2 to treat rice
straw, showed, after ensiling, a higher IVDMD. However; it is further suggested
that a combination of lime and urea would give better results than either urea or lime
alone. Sirohi and Rai (1995) used 3% urea plus 4% lime at 50% moisture for
3 weeks of incubation. They found this to be the most effective treatment process
for rice straw. This was due improving the digestibility and degradable nutrients of
the treated straw. Saadulah et al. (1981) and Hadjipanayiotou (1984) found that the
use of lime and other alkali agents had additive effects on rice straw treatment and
utilization in addition to being safer and more cost-effective to use than NaOH.
As cited by Trach et al. (2001), there are reports that treated rice straw with pure
lime posed contradicting results in its effect on delignification or degradation of rice
straw. There was a report that the dry matter intake of animals was reduced due a
palatability problem of the treated straw. Lime treatment did not affect N content,
but it appeared to be more powerful in delignification or reducing neutral detergent
fiber (NDF) and hemicellulose contents of the treated straw. Increasing levels of
lime and/or urea during rice straw treatment resulted in some negative interactions
between the two chemicals. However, a level of 2% urea alone seemed to be too low
for effective treatment and a level of 6% lime seemed to be too high for rumen
cellulolysis.

7.3.3 Biological Treatment

Biological treatment of rice straw involves the use of enzymes and different micro-
organisms, such as bacteria and fungi. Different fungi strains have the capacity to
act on the cell wall contents of the straw thereby improving the degradation rates
120 D. Aquino et al.

and making other nutrients available to the animal. As cited by Jalc (2002), the
enzymes secreted by fungi had strong affinity to metabolize lingo-celluloses and
these are biological agents in treating rice straw to improve its nutritional value
through the selective action of delignification. Nevertheless, its current use in devel-
oping countries is still a big question due to limitation in technical skills and the
availability of resources to produce and handle large quantities of fungi or their
enzymes for practical and field application. Biological treatment of straw brings
some concerns and problems to be addressed and overcome (Schiere and Ibrahim
1989). For example, there are fungi species that are not edible and produce toxic
substances both to human and animals. Fungi also require an environment for them
to grow and reproduce, such as pH, temperature, pressure, and O2, and CO2 concen-
trations before, during, and after the treatment period. With the current development
in mycology, there are now simple protocols or guides to be used in growing fungi
as well in enzyme production or purification for rice straw treatment. There are
commercially available enzyme inoculants or additives available in the market such
that the costs to purchase these substrates will continuously decline and can be used
by ruminant raisers to increase their production efficiency as well as their farm
income (Beauchemin et al. 2004).

7.3.3.1 White-Rot Fungi Treatment

White-rot fungi are known to have degrading or decaying properties by acting

ligno-cellulolytic components of farm byproducts including wood. These have the
capacity to decompose and metabolize cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin under
favorable environments through enzymatic reactions to their substrates (Eriksson
et al. 1990). Some of the significant characteristics of many white-rot fungi species
involve their ability to effectively hydrolyze lignin hence they are considered to be
lignin degraders. These species can improve the nutritive value of fodder by tender-
ing more degradable carbohydrates for rumen microbial fermentation (Yamakava
and Okamnto 1992; Howard et al. 2003). White-rot fungi secrete varieties of extra-
cellular lignin-modifying enzymes that consist of lignin-peroxidase (LiP),
manganese-­ dependent peroxidase (MnP), laccase (phenol oxidase), and H2O2-­
producing oxidase (aryl-alcohol oxidase; AAO and glyoxaloxidase) (Kirk and
Farrell 1987; Arora et al. 2002; Novotny et al. 2004; Arora and Gill 2005; Lechner
and Papinutti 2006).
Researchers have observed that some fungi species can decompose or directly
act on free phenolic monomers to break the bonds or cross-links between lignin and
polysaccharides of rice straw (Chen et al. 1996). Other fungal species improve the
IVDMD of treated straw (Karunanandaa et al. 1995; Karunanadaa and Varga 1996a,
b; Fazaeli et al. 2006). Karunanandaa et al. (1995) also reported that incubation of
rice straw with 8–10% w/w for 30 days using three white-rot fungi species. Pleurotus
sajor-caju enhanced IVDMD in both rice leaves and stems. However, results
obtained using Cyathus stercoreus gave the highest IVDMD compared to other
fungi species (Karunanandaa et al. 1992). The sequence by which the white-rot
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 121

fungi act on its substrates is dependent on the fungal species. There are species that
prefer to access first on readily degradable carbohydrates, such as simple sugars,
cellulose, and hemicellulose and eventually degrade lignin, thus resulting in a lower
energy supply for ruminants (Karunanadaa and Varga 1996a, b; Jalc 2002). The
length of incubation in treatment of straw is dependent on the white-rot fungi spe-
cies. During the early stage of incubation, some losses in energy are expected due
to mycelial growth but after a certain time, some white-rot species preferably attack
lignin without degrading cellulose and hemicellulose, thus supplying more degrad-
able energy for the ruminants.
Nowadays, it is important to do research on mycology by selecting fungi species
that prefer to attack lignin rather than the structural carbohydrates or cell walls of
rice straw. Once these species are identified, mycologists can breed even better
strains (Rodrigues et al. 2008). Growing edible mushrooms is a dual purpose of
treating rice straw. As described elsewhere in this book, rice straw serves as a sub-
strate to produce food (mushrooms) and feed from the mushroom-spent bedding.
Some of the edible fungal species include Pleurotis ostreatus and Volvarella sp.
These can be grown easily and the left-over mycelia from the mushroom bedding
can increase the protein as well as the degradable carbohydrates of the rice straw.
Continuous research on white-rot species has to be done and identification of new
edible fungi species is necessary to explore the potential and characteristics to pro-
duce more fruiting bodies for farmers’ harvest as well as achieving optimum feed-
ing quality of the unutilized mushroom bedding.

7.3.3.2 Treatment with Enzymes

The catabolic breakdown of any complex substance into its simplest component is
brought about by chemical reactions and/or by enzymatic processes. Enzymes
involved in the degradation of rice straw are mostly of microbial origin and their
action is very specific to the substrates to be degraded. There are commercially-­
available fiber-degrading enzymes, such as cellulases, hemicellosi, glucanase, and
xylanases and many others. However, their stability and potency are always affected
by many factors, such as temperature and duration as well as how the enzyme prod-
ucts were processed and packaged. Commercial enzymes used in the livestock feed
industry are generally of fungal (Trichoderma longibrachiatum, Aspergillus niger,
and A. oryzae) or bacterial (Lactobacillus and Staphylococcus species) origins
(Colombatto et al. 2003).
The degradability of cereal straw can be increased through enzyme treatment or
any combination of other treatments (Liu and Ørskov 2000; Wang et al. 2004; Zhu
et al. 2005; Eun et al. 2006; Fazaeli et al. 2006; Rodrigues et al. 2008). Additionally,
using fibrolytic enzymes show improvements in the average daily gain of steers
(Beauchemin et al. 1995), fleece weight and wool production of lambs (Jafari et al.
2005), and milk production of dairy cows (Yang et al. 2000). Enzyme treatment of
rice straw is not yet very popular in raising ruminants under small-scale production
122 D. Aquino et al.

systems because of the additional input costs involve as well as the limitation of
skills for using enzyme products.

7.4  ffects of Feeding Pure or Pretreated Rice Straw

E
to Ruminants

Generally, in feeding dry cows, rice straw can be used for about 50% of the ration.
Additional urea-molasses mineral blocks could be used as supplements to support
the requirement of the dry cows. Rations with rice straw greater than 50% would
result in a declining body weight of the cows.
For cows with calves, the use of rice straw should not exceed 25% of the total
ration, with the remaining 75% being good-quality hay or legumes or a concentrate
supplement. When feeding lactating cows, rice straw alone is not adequate to sup-
port milk synthesis or milk production. Supplementary feeds, such as dairy concen-
trates or dried legumes, are required to augment the deficient nutrients in rice straw
so that the goal of supporting normal milk production is achieved.
One consideration in feeding rice straw to ruminants is to balance the quantity of
phosphorus and other trace minerals in the ration. Rice straw has lower phosphorus
and trace mineral contents, thus supplementation with trace minerals and phospho-
rus, especially in high-yielding cows, is necessary.

7.4.1 Effects of Urea-Treated Rice Straw in Ruminants

Aquino et al. (2016) reported on the effects of feeding urea-molasses-treated rice

straw to dairy buffaloes through the community science and technology-based farm
project involving 30 dairy buffalo farmers in the Philippines. The farmers were
trained to produce treated rice straw using urea-molasses solution (UMS). The
UMS consisted of 2% urea, 5% molasses, and 93% water at a 2-parts rice straw to
1-part UMS ratio. The treated rice straw was allowed to partially ferment in silage
bags for 21 days before feeding to buffaloes. Results of feeding UMS-treated rice
straw (UMTRS) to dairy buffaloes showed a total milk production of 974 kg cow−1
in 210 milking days. In contrast, buffaloes fed no UMTRS produced 777 kg of milk
during the same lactation period. Comparing the effect of UMTRS feeding with that
of pure rice straw showed a difference of 147 kg milk production or with a milk
yield difference of 0.7 kg milk cow−1 day−1. It was also noted that the UMS improves
the crude protein content of treated rice straw from 4.7% to 7.9% and the DM
digestibility of rice straw was increased from 47% to 55%.
In a separate study, Aquino et al. (2018) used fermented total-mixed rations
(FTMRs) composed of rice straw (RS) in combinations with banana byproducts or
water hyacinth (Table 7.1). The formulated FTMRs composed of other feed
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 123

Table 7.1 ADG in weight of growing and lactating buffaloes fed fermented total mixed ration
composed of rice straw and banana byproducts or water hyacinth
Rice straw + banana Rice straw + water
byproducts hyacinth
Item Control diet 25% 50% 25% 50%
Growing buffaloes, # 5 5 5 5 5
Initial weight, kg 218.60 220.60 222.00 247.80 247.80
Final weight, kg 293.60 282.20 304.40 315.00 268.40
ADG, kg 0.81 0.68 0.96 0.67 0.28
Lactating buffaloes, # 5 5 5 5 5
Total milk yield, kg 120d−1 800.40 752.40 764.00 812.00 793.20
Milk yield, kg d−1 6.67 6.27 6.37 6.77 6.61

i­ngredients, such as rice bran, copra meal, molasses, mono di-calcium phosphate,
and urea. The FTRMs had remarkable results in terms of ADG and milk production
of dairy buffaloes. The FTMR, composed of 20% rice straw in combination with
50% banana byproducts, resulted in a 960-g ADG compared to a 810-g ADG of
growing buffaloes in the control ration. This brought an 18.9% increase in the
growth rate of the buffaloes. On the other hand, FTMR, composed of 28% rice straw
combined with 25% water hyacinth, gave a 670-g ADG compared to only a 520-g
ADG for the control diet, which is equivalent to an increase of 28.85%. The increase
in ADG of growing buffaloes was attributed to the increase in daily feed intake from
1.7% (control) to 2.13% (50% banana + RS) and from 2.01% (control) to 2.65%
(25% water lily +RS) of the body weight. In addition, there was an increase in DM
digestibility (from 50.95% to 60.35%) and CP digestibility (62.30–66.33%) for rice
straw with 50% banana byproducts. The combination of RS with 25% water lily
also improved the DM (50.10% vs. 57.96%) and CP digestibility (58.08% vs
61.96%), respectively.
The FTMR with 28% rice straw plus 25% water hyacinth was recommended
over the control diet as shown by a 100-g milk difference over the control (6.77 vs
6.67 kg day−1) or FTMR with 50% banana byproducts with a 400-g milk difference
(6.77 vs 6.37 kg) over the FTMR with 50% banana byproducts. The observations
were also supported by the increase in the daily DM intake; 2.5% vs 2.3% of body
weight of the cows.
The ration composed of rice straw with supplementary protein, energy, and/or
minerals have been shown to optimize rumen function and maximize the utilization
or intake of rice straw. Chenost and Kayouli (1997) emphasized that rumen micro-
organisms should be provided with needed nutrients for their growth and self-­
multiplication so that degradation of the cell walls of straw is maximized. This also
leads to conditions for sustainable process of cellulolysis. In a field trial, Warly et al.
(1992) showed that a rice straw ration with supplementary soybean meal increased
both degradability and intake of the animals. Untreated rice straw is low in protein
when this is supplemented with cottonseed meal (Wanapat et al. 1996) or urea
124 D. Aquino et al.

molasses-multi-nutrient block (Vu et al. 1999; Wanapat et al. 1999; Akter et al.
2004); these significantly increase the cow’s milk production.

7.4.2 Effects of Biological Treatment of Rice Straw

Zadrazil (1977) identified three species of fungi based on substrate preference and
type of enzymes they secrete for the degradation rice straw cell walls. The first
group has cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic activities of which they act on cellulose
and hemicellulose. The second group of fungi preferentially acts on the lignin con-
tent while the third group of fungi decomposes cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin
simultaneously. The second group of fungi is the most recommended for rice straw
treatment because of its peculiarity to break and degrade structural carbohydrates
present in rice straw. It is suggested that screening new fungal strains is essential
with desired characteristics to efficiently improve the nutritive and feeding value of
rice straw.
Zayed (2018) evaluated different parameters for the improvement of the nutri-
tional value of rice straw. During his evaluation, he used moist straw, soaked straw
for 24 h without pasteurization, and soaked straw for 24 h with pasteurization at
100 °C for 1 h. The preprocessed rice straw samples were inoculated having three
combinations of microbial inoculants. He also observed that moistened rice straw
had the highest organic matter reduction at 74.21% if inoculated with Azotobacter
chroococcum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Additionally, if inoculated with
Azospirillum brasilense and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, significant reduction in
crude fiber at 27.54%; neutral detergent fiber at 55.39%; and 42.47% acid detergent
fiber can be observed. For rice straw soaked for 24 h and inoculated with Azospirillum
brasilense and Bacillus megaterium, a significant increase in crude protein at
13.71% was observed. Zayed (2018) further concluded that interaction between
microbial treatment and physical pretreatments of rice straw shows a significant
decrease in organic matter, crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent
fiber as well as a significant increase in crude protein compared to the control.

7.5 Limitations of Rice Straw Utilization

Several factors were identified that limit the utilization of straw as animal fodder.
These include poor digestibility, low animal intake, and very low protein content.
Technologies to overcome the identified factors have been developed for pretreat-
ment of straw before feeding to animals. However, its adoptability varies according
to the capacity and capability of the farmers or its practicality including health and
environmental concerns when used by the farmers.
In physical treatment of straw, the limitation is mainly on grinding of the straw
into smaller particle size. The positive effect of reduced particle size is that it
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 125

p­ romotes higher intake due to an increase in the rate of passage of the ingested feed
by the animal. The negative side of this is that it causes less time for rumination and
less exposure to microbial degradation, thus in turn reducing degradation and
digestibility of the straw components. Uden (1988) observed that grinding and pel-
leting of grass hay decreased dry matter degradability in cows from 73% to 67%,
which was mainly due to a decreased fermentation rate (9.4–5.1% h−1) and decreased
total retention time of the solids from 73 to 54 h, resulting in an increased intake
(Stensig et al. 1994). The use of machines in physical treatment and processing of
crop residues is also not practical for small-scale farms because of their capacity to
buy equipment and the benefits derived may be too low or even negative for the
farmers (Schiere and Ibrahim 1989).
The costs involve can be one of the factors that limit the adoption of chemical
treatment of straw. Although there are significant effects on the improvement of the
nutritive value, animal performance, as well as an increase in income due to treat-
ment of rice straw, the farmers should still balance their decision whether to adopt
or not to adopt using treated straw. Hazard issues, such as toxicity and environmen-
tal pollution, are some of the limitations in using chemicals for straw treatment.
For microbial treatment of rice straw, one of the major drawbacks is the strain of
the fungi to be used and its capacity to degrade lignin and other components of the
straw, such as cellulose and hemi-cellulose. Incubation period is another limitation
for its practical application in treating straw. There are species of fungi with very
high affinity to degrade lingo-cellulosic materials, even in just 1 or 2 weeks of incu-
bation and these have to be explored for its optimum incubation time to increase the
feeding value of straw. In addition, some fungi produce toxins that may affect both
human and animals so proper care should be considered in using these for rice straw
treatment.

7.6 Summary and Recommendations

Among agricultural byproducts, rice straw is most abundant, low in cost, and a
practical source of fodder for ruminants. Its utilization as a livestock feed is limited
due to problems in collection, hauling, and storage. Rice straw has low nutritional
value (low protein content and poor digestibility) compared to grasses, thus it can-
not support the nutrients required by high-yielding milk cows and buffaloes. There
are technologies that have been developed to increase the nutritive value, nutrient
digestibility, and utilization of rice straw, such as physical processing, pretreatment
using chemicals, and/or biological treatment. However, adoption of these developed
technologies is still low due to farmers’ limited skills and inputs (e.g., farm equip-
ment) and their doubts regarding applicability to the farm situation and the benefits
for the animals and livestock producers. To maximize the utilization of rice straw as
fodder for ruminants, mechanization is most important to facilitate collection, haul-
ing, and stacking or processing all available rice straw from the field.
126 D. Aquino et al.

References

Abou-EL-Enin OH, Fadel JG, Mackill DJ (1999) Differences in chemical composition and fibre
digestion of rice straw with, without, anhydrous ammonia from 53 rice varieties. Anim Feed
Sci Technol 79:129–136
Agbagla-Dohnani A, Noziere P, Gaillard-Martinie B, Puard M. Doreau M (2003) Effect of silica
content on rice straw ruminal degradation. J Anim Sci 140:183–192
Akter Y, Akbar MA, Shahjalal M, Ahmed TU (2004) Effect of urea molasses multi-nutrient blocks
supplementation of dairy cows fed rice straw and green grasses on milk yield, composition, live
weight gain of cows and calves and feed intake. Pak J Biol Sci 7(9):1523–1525
Aquino DL, Fujihara T, Baltazar H, Santos J (2016) Community-based S & T farm project on the
preparation and utilization of urea-treated rice straw (UTRS) as fodder for dairy buffaloes.
Proc. PCC R & D review of completed and on-going research projects. July 27–29, 2016
Aquino DL, Casamis, Amido R, Florendo PC, Garcia NP, Baltazar C, Del Barrio AN (2018)
Nutritive value, digestibility and performance of buffaloes using banana by-products and water
hyacinth as alternative feed sources. 2018 PCC R & D Review of completed and on-going
research projects, PCC-NHQ. July 4–6, 2018
Arieli A (1997) Whole cottonseed in dairy cattle feeding: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol
72:97–110
Arora DS, Gill PK (2005) Production of ligninolytic enzymes by Phlebia floridensis. World
J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:1021–1028
Arora DS, Chander M, Gill PK (2002) Involvement of lignin peroxidase, manganese peroxi-
dase and laccase in degradation and selective ligninolysis of wheat straw. Int Biodeterior
Biodegradation 50:115–120
Beauchemin KA, Rode LM, Sewalt VJH (1995) Fibrolytic enzymes increase fiber digestibility and
growth rate of steers fed dry forages. Can J Anim Sci 75:641–644
Beauchemin KA, Colombatto D, Morgavi DP (2004) A rationale for the development of feed
enzyme products for ruminants. Can J Anim Sci 84:23–36
Berger LL, Fahey GC, Bourquin LD, Tilgeyer EC (1994) Modification of forage quality after
harvest. In: Fahey C (ed) Forage quality, evaluation, and utilisation. American Society of
Agronomy, Inc, Madison, pp 922–966
Calzado JF, Rolz C (1990) Estimation of the growth rate of Pleurotus on stocked straw. J Ferment
Bioeng 69:70–71
Chaudhry AS, Miller EL (1996) The effect of sodium hydroxide and alkaline hydrogen peroxide
on chemical composition of wheat straw and voluntary intake, growth and digesta kinetics in
store lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 60:69–86
Chen J, Fales SL, Varga GA, Royse DJ (1996) Biodegradability of free monomeric cell-wall-bound
phenolic acids in maize Stover by two strains of white rot fungi. J Sci Food Agric 71:145–150
Chenost M, Kayouli C (1997) Roughage utilisation in warm climates. FAO animal production and
health paper 135, Rome
Colombatto D, Morgavi DP, Furtado AF, Beauchemin KA (2003) Screening of exogenous enzymes
for ruminant diets: relationship between biochemical characteristics and in vitro ruminal degra-
dation. J Anim Sci 81:2628–2638
Devendra C (1997) Crop residues for feeding animals in Asia: technology development and adop-
tion in crop/livestock systems. In: Renard C (ed) Crop residuals in sustainable mixed crop/
livestock farming system. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 241–267
Devendra C, Thomas D (2002) Crop-animal interactions in mixed farming systems in Asia. Agric
Syst 71:27–40
Doyle PT, Devendra C, Pearce GR (1986) Rice straw as a feed for ruminants. International devel-
opment program. Australia Universities and Colleges, Canberra. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedi-
rect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/8776/70328.pdf?sequence=3
Eriksson K-EL, Blanchette RA, Ander P (1990) Microbial and enzymatic degradation of wood and
wood components. Springer, Berlin
Eun JS, Beauchemin KA, Hong SH, Bauer WM (2006) Exogenous enzymes added to untreated or
ammoniated rice straw: effects on in vitro fermentation characteristics and degradability. Anim
Feed Sci Technol 131:86–101
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 127

Fadel Elseed AMA, Sekine J, Hishinuma M, Hamana K (2003) Effects of ammonia, urea plus
calcium hydroxide and animal urine treatments on chemical composition and in sacco degrad-
ability of rice straw. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 16:368–373
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2000) Rice straw as livestock feed. http://www.fao.
org/3/X6512E/X6512E07.htm
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2012) Retrieved March 30, 2012 http://Teca.Fao.Org/
Technology/Treating-Straw-Animal-Feeding-Beckmann-Method
Fazaeli H, Azizi A, Amile M (2006) Nutritive value index of treated wheat straw with Pleurotus
fungi fed to sheep. Pak J Biol Sci 9(13):2444–2449
Hadjipanayiotou M (1984) Effect of level and type of alkali on the digestibility in vitro of ensiled,
chopped barley straw. Agric Wastes 10:187–194
Howard R, Abotsi E, Jansen EL, Howard S (2003) Lignocellulose biotechnology: issues of biocon-
version and enzyme production. Afr J Biotechnol 2:602–619
Ibrahim MNM (1983) Physical, chemical, physico-chemical, and biological treatments of crop
residues. In: Pearce GR (ed) The utilization of fibrous agricultural residues. Australian
Development Assistance Bureau, Research for Development Seminar 3, Los Baños
Jackson MG (1977) Review article: the alkali treatment of straw. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2:105–130
Jafari A, Edriss MA, Alikhani M, Emtiazi G (2005) Effects of treated wheat straw with exogenous
fibre-degrading enzymes on wool characteristics of ewe lambs. Pak J Nutr 4:321–326
Jalc D (2002) Straw enrichment for fodder production by fungi. In: Kempken F (ed) The Mycota
XI agricultural applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–38
Joshi DC, Talapatra SK (1968) Studies on the utilization of minerals under acid- and alkali-­
producing cattle feeds. Indian J Vet Sci Anim Husb 38:645–664
Kamstra L, Moxon AL, Bentley OG, (1958) The effect of stage of maturity and lignification on the
digestion of cellulose in forage plants by rumen microorganisms in vitro. J Anim Sci:199–208
Karunanadaa K, Varga GA (1996a) Colonization of rice straw by white rot fungi (Cyathus ster-
coreus): effect on ruminal fermentation pattern, nitrogen metabolism, and fiber utilization dur-
ing continuous culture. Anim Feed Sci Technol 61:1–16
Karunanadaa K, Varga GA (1996b) Colonization of rice straw by white rot fungi: cell wall mono-
saccharides, phenolic acids, ruminal fermentation characteristics and digestibility of cell wall
fiber components in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 63:2732–2788
Karunanandaa K, Fales SL, Varga GA, Royse DJ (1992) Chemical composition and biodegradabil-
ity of crop residues colonized by white rot fungi. J. Sci. Food Agric. 60:105–112
Karunanandaa K, Varga GA, Akin DE, Rigsby LL, Royse DJ (1995) Botanical fractions of rice
straw colonized by white rot fungi: changes in chemical composition and structure. Anim Feed
Sci Technol 55:179–199
Kirk TK, Farrell RL (1987) Enzymatic “combustion”: the microbial degradation of lignin. Ann
Rev Microbiol 41:465–505
Lam TBT, Kadoya K, Iiyama K (2001) Bonding of hydroxycinnamic acids to lignin: ferulic and
p-coumaric acids are predominantly linked at the benzyl position of lignin, not the b-position,
in grass cell walls. Phytochemistry 57:987–992
Langar RN, Bakshi MRS, Gupta VK (1985) Utilization of agricultural wastes. Proc. Symposium,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
Lechner BE, Papinutti VL (2006) Production of lignocellulosic enzymes during growth and fruit-
ing of the edible fungus Lentinus tigrinus on wheat straw. Process Biochem 41:594–598
Liu JX, Ørskov ER (2000) Cellulase treatment of untreated and steam pre-treated rice straw-effect
on in vitro fermentation characteristics. Anim Feed Sci Technol 88:189–200
Liu JX, Ørskov ER, Chen XB (1999) Optimization of steam treatment as a method for upgrading
rice straw as feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 76:345–357
Liu JX, Susenbeth A, Südekum KH (2002) In vitro gas production measurements to evaluate inter-
actions between untreated and chemically treated rice straws, grass hay, and mulberry leaves.
J Anim Sci 80:517–524
Maiorella BL (1985) Ethanol. In: Young M (ed) Comprehensive biotechnology. Pergamon, Oxford,
pp 861–914
Mcanally RA (1942) Digestion of straw by the ruminant. Biochem J:392–399
128 D. Aquino et al.

Milstein O, Bechar A, Shragina L, Gressall J (1987) Solar pasteurization of straw for nutritional
upgrading and as substrate for ligninolytic organisms. Biotechnol Lett 9:269–274
Nath K, Sahai K, Kehar ND (1969) Effect of water washing, lime treatment and lime and calcium
carbonate supplementation on the nutritive value of paddy (oryza sativa) straw. J Anim Sci
28:383
Nguyen XT (2000) Treatment and supplenetation of rice straw for ruminant feeding in Vietnam.
Doctor Scientiarum Thesis 2000:26. Agricultural University of Norway. ISSN 0802-3220.
ISBS 82-575-0440-8
Novotny C, Svobodova K, Erbanova P, Cajthaml T, Kasinath A, Lang E, Sasek V (2004)
Ligninolytic fungi in bioremediation: extracellular enzyme production and degradation rate.
Soil Biol Biochem 36:1545–1551
Ooshima H, Aso K, Harana Y, Yamamota T (1984) Microwave treatment of cellulosic materials for
their enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Lett 6:289–294
Phang OC, Vadiveloo J (1992) Effects of varieties, botanical fractions and supplements of palm oil
by-products on the feeding value of rice straw in goats. Small Rumin Res 6:295–301
Pradhan R, Tobioka H, Tasaki I (1997) Effect of moisture content and different levels of additives
on chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of rice straw. Anim Feed Sci
Technol 68:273–284
Prasad RDD, Reddy MR, Reddy GVN (1998) Effect of feeding baled and stacked urea treated rice
straw on the performance of crossbred cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 73:347–352
Rangnekar DV, Badve VC, Kharat ST, Sobale DN, Joshi AL (1982) Effect of high pressure steam
treatment on chemical composition and digestibility in vitro of roughages. Anini Feed Sci
Technol 7:61–70
Reddy DV (1996) Evaluation of rice straw-poultry droppings-based rations supplemented with
graded levels of rice bran in fistulated buffaloes. Anim Feed Sci Technol 58:227–237
Rodrigues MAM, Pinto P, Bezerra RMF, Dias AA, Guedes CVM, Cardoso VMG, Cone JW,
Ferreira LMM, Colaco J, Sequeira CA (2008) Effect of enzyme extracts isolated from white
rot fungi on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of wheat straw. Anim Feed Sci
Technol 141:326–338
Saadulah M, Haque M, Dolberg F (1981) Treatment of rice straw with lime. Trop Anim Prod
6:116–120
Sahnounea S, Besle J, Chenost M, Jouany J, Combes D (1991) Treatment of straw with urea. 1.
Ureolysis in a low water medium. Anim Feed Sci Technol:75–93
Sarnklong C, Cone JW, Pellikaan W, Hendriks WH (2010) Utilization of rice straw and dif-
ferent treatments to improve its feed value for ruminants: a review Asian-Aust. J Anim Sci
23(5):680–692
Schiere JB, Ibrahim MNM (1989) Feeding of urea ammonia treated rice straw: a compilation of
miscellaneous reports produced by the straw utilization project (Sri Lanka). Pudoc, Wageningen
Selim ASM, Pan J, Takano T, Suzuki T, Koike S (2004) Effect of ammonia treatment on physical
strength of rice straw, distribution of straw particles and particle-associated bacteria in sheep
rumen. Anim Feed Sci Technol 115:117–128
Shen HS, Ni DB, Sundstøl F (1998) Studies on untreated and urea-treated rice straw from three
cultivation seasons: 1. Physical and chemical measurements in straw and straw fractions. Anim
Feed Sci Technol 73:243–261
Sirohi SK, Rai SN (1995) Associative effect of lime plus urea treatment of paddy straw on chemi-
cal composition and in vitro digestibility. Indian J Anim Sci 65:134–135
Stensig T, Weisbjerg MR, Madsen J, Hvelplund T (1994) Estimation of voluntary feed intake from
in sacco degradation and rate of passage of DM or NDF. Livestock Prod Sci 39:49–52
Sundstøl F, Coxworth EM (1984) Ammonia treatment. In: Sundstøl F, Owen E (eds) straw and
other fibrous byproducts as feed, Development in Animal Veterinary Sciences 14. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp 196–247
Theander O, Aman P (1984) Anatomical and chemical characteristics. In: Sundstøl F, Owen E
(eds) Straw and other fibrous byproducts as feed, Developments in Animal Veterinary Sciences,
14. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 45–78
7 Rice Straw-Based Fodder for Ruminants 129

Trach NX, Mo M, Da CX (2001) Effects of treatment of rice straw with lime an/or urea on
responses of growing cattle. Livest Res Rural Dev 13(5):2001
Uden P (1988) The effect of grinding and pelleting hay on digestibility, fermentation rate, digesta
passage and rumen and faecal particle size in cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 19:145–157
Vadiveloo J (2000) Nutritional properties of the leaf and stem of rice straw. Anim Feed Sci Technol
83:57–65
Vadiveloo J (2003) The effect of agronomic improvement and urea treatment on the nutritional
value of Malaysian rice straw varieties. Anim Feed Sci Technol 108:33–146
Vu DD, Cuong LX, Dung CA, Hai PH (1999) Use of urea-molasses-multi-nutrient block and urea-­
treated rice straw for improving dairy cattle productivity in Vietnam. Prev Vet Med 38:187–193
Walker HA (1984) Physical treatment. In straw and other fibrous byproducts as feed. In: Sundstøl
F, Owen E (eds) Developments in animal veterinary sciences, vol 14. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
p 79
Wanapat M, Sommart K, Saardrak K (1996) Cottonseed meal supplementation of dairy cattle fed
rice straw. Livest Res Rural Dev 8(3)
Wanapat M, Petlum A, Pimpa O (1999) Strategic supplementation with a high quality feed block
on roughage intake, milk yield and composition and economic return in lactating dairy cows.
Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 12:901–903
Wang Y, Spratling BM, ZoBell DR, Wiedmeier RD, McAllister TA (2004) Effect of alkali pretreat-
ment of wheat straw on the efficacy of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes. J Anim Sci 82:198–208
Warly L, Matsui T, Harumoto T, Fujihara T (1992) Study on the utilization of rice straw by sheep:
part I. The effect of soybean meal supplementation on the eating and rumination behavior.
Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 5:695–698
Yamakava M, Okamnto HA (1992) Effect of incubation with edible mushroom, Pleurotus
ostreatus, on voluntary intake and digestibility or rice bran by sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol
63:133–138
Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA, Rode LM (2000) A comparison of methods of adding fibrolytic
enzymes to lactating cow diets. J Dairy Sci 83:2512–2520
Zadrazil F (1977) The conversion of straw into feed by basidiomycetes. Euro J Appl Microbiol
Bioteclinol 4:291–294
Zayed MS (2018) Enhancement the feeding value of rice straw as animal fodder through microbial
inoculants and physical treatments. Intl J Recycl Organic Waste Agric 7:117–124. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40093-018-0197-7
Zhu S, Wu Y, Yu Z, Liao J, Zhang Y (2005) Pretreatment by microwave/alkali of rice straw and its
enzymic hydrolysis. Process Biochem 40:3082–3086

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.