Cover Image
close this bookBioconversion of Organic Residues for Rural Communities (UNU, 1979)
close this folderIndian experience with treated straw as feed
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentIntroduction
View the documentExperience with straw treatment
View the documentField testing and demonstration of straw treatment
View the documentGeneral considerations
View the documentSummary
View the documentAnnex 1. The energy efficiency of the two-stage, feed-fuel processing of straw in indian villages
View the documentAnnex 2. Method of calculating the value presented in table 2 for the efficiency of naoh energy usage
View the documentAnnex 3. Recommendations to farmers on the treatment of straw
View the documentAnnex 4. Calculated efficiency of milk production by straw-fed village buffaloes
View the documentReferences
View the documentDiscussion summary


Experience with straw treatment
Field testing and demonstration of straw treatment
General considerations
Annex 1. The energy efficiency of the two-stage, feed-fuel processing of straw in indian villages
Annex 2. Method of calculating the value presented in table 2 for the efficiency of naoh energy usage
Annex 3. Recommendations to farmers on the treatment of straw
Annex 4. Calculated efficiency of milk production by straw-fed village buffaloes
Discussion summary

M.G. Jackson

College of Agriculture, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India


Straw is a major by-product of crop production in the world. It is potentially useful as a source of energy, though it also contains worthwhile amounts of plant nutrients. Being bulky, it must, for the most part, be processed on the farm where it is produced. Ploughing it under or composting it are efficient wads of recycling plant nutrients, but these methods waste all of the energy the straw contains. In India virtually all straw is put through a two-stage process that both taps some of its energy and recycles plant nutrients. This process consists of feeding the straw to livestock and then using the dung as fuel. Usually, the dung is dried and burned directly, but this is undesirable because nitrogen is lost. A significant improvement is the introduction of the biogas plant to produce fuel gas from the dung; nitrogen is recovered from the slurry after fermentation (1 - 3). The efficiency of this two-stage, feed-fuel system ranges from 9 to 14 per cent (Annex 1).

Aside from purely energy considerations, the Indian system of processing straw on the farm has much to commend it. The relative simplicity of using an animal to convert straw energy to draught power is perhaps foremost. The same applies to milk production, a process in which straw provides the energy for the bioconversion of low-quality, inedible plant proteins (miscellaneous vegetation, grain-and oilseed-milling offals) into high-quality milk protein; the gain is not simply in proportion to the energy converted. Finally, it may be noted that straw cannot be used as a fuel in villages unless it is first passed through an animal; even present-day biogas plants cannot handle straw directly.

The efficiency of the livestock feed step can be increased by treating the straw before it is fed. The data presented in this paper indicate that the live weight gain in growing animals can be increased substantially if the straw is treated. The overall energy recovery from straw might not increase as a result of straw treatment because the more complete digestion of the treated straw by the animal would leave relatively less dung for use as fuel. Milk is, however, a more valuable form of energy than fuel.

The purpose of this paper is to review the Indian experience with various methods of straw treatment. It will include a discussion of the improvements obtained in animal productivity, the economics of such treatment, as well as the larger considerations of its energy cost and environmental impact. A special point made in this paper is that straw treatment techniques, like any new farming practice, will have to be evaluated on small private farms; satisfactory testing in an experiment station is not possible. A procedure for farm testing is outlined.

Experience with straw treatment

Straw, like all mature plant tissue, is relatively indigestible by the micro-organisms that inhabit the digestive tract of ruminants, This is because straw cell walls are heavily lignified or silicified. The objective of straw treatment is to increase digestibility by disrupting the cell wall. A number of methods have been developed, all of which have been described in detail by Jackson (4). These methods may be classified as chemical, physical, and biological. The chemical methods all involve the use of alkali solutions and are the most widely tested methods at present. Among the physical treatments, only pressure cooking alters the cell wall; simple grinding does not increase digestibility. A promising method of biological treatment is the growing of lignin-digesting fungi on straw. In the Indian village context, the feeding of alkali-treated straw will usually require the simultaneous feeding of additional nitrogen, as it will be the limiting nutrient in straw for both ruminant digestion and growth and production of the animal. As feed nitrogen is extremely scarce, the use of a urea supplement is an essential adjunct to straw treatment.

Alkali Treatment

Sen et al. (5) experimented with the Beckmann method of straw treatment using wheat and paddy during the Second World War. In this method, straw is soaked for about 20 hours in 10 to 201 of a 1.5 per cent NaOH solution per kg straw, and subsequently washed with large volumes (up to 50 I/kg) of clean water to remove residual alkali. The results of the Sen et al. experiments (5) were similar to those from experiments conducted in Europe at the same time (6); the digestibility of the straw was increased by an average of 25 percentage units - from 40 - 50 per cent to 65 - 75 per cent. In spite of its effectiveness, this method of straw treatment did not become widespread in Europe, mainly because costs were too high. Some 8 kg NaOH are needed per 100 kg straw and the yield of treated straw is only 75 per cent.

In India, cost was not a factor (see Table 1, for example), but even so it never came into widespread use. Many state departments of animal husbandry began straw treatment by the Beckmann method on their livestock breeding farms, but it was not continued for long, and it was never really introduced into villages. There are several reasons for this. The units set up on livestock farms were ail small-scale, manual treatment installations that were too small for herds of 100 or more animals. The Beckmann straw treatment method gained ground in Norway only in the 1950s after a mechanized installation was designed (7), a development which did not occur in India. In any case, even if it had, the treatment of straw on a handful of government farms would not have much significance for the bulk of Indian livestock, which is owned by small farmers.

The reason the Beckmann method was never adopted by small farmers in India is primarily that new practices have to be demonstrated on the farm to convince farmers of their usefulness, and in the 1940s and early 1950s there were no organizations that could do this. The very concept of on-farm demonstrations of animal husbandry practices, though introduced two decades ago (8), did not receive any attention until very recently (4). A purely technical problem would probably severely limit the spread of the Beckmann method of treatment - it requires huge amounts of water. In many villages water is scarce.

In the early 1950s, Kehar (8) demonstrated the value of Beckmann-treated straw for animals maintained in villages by their owners (Table 1). The heifers with which he did his experiment were fed only very limited amounts of supplemental feeds, and even these supplements were given irregularly. The heifers suffered all the vicissitudes of a poor village environment. The simple treatment of the straw in their diet nearly doubled the rate of weight gain.

TABLE 1. Comparative Costs of Feeding Growing Heifers Untreated and Treated Paddy Straw (Beckmann Method) in Rural India

  Untreated Treated
Straw consumption (kg/day, dry straw basis) 3.00 3.00
Feed cost (Rs/head/day) 0.36 0.56
Liveweight gain (kg/day) 0.10 0.18
Days to gain 100 kg 1,000 555
Feed cost/kg gain (Rs) 3.60 3.11

Source: Kehar (8).

Much more could probably have been achieved if a supplement of urea had been fed along with the treated straw, and if the straw had been fed ad libitum. These results are noteworthy for two reasons. First, they indicate that straw treatment can be profitable under village conditions. Second, it was the first, and probably still the only, example of what has now come to be considered an important technique for testing new animal husbandry practices. The need for on-farm testing of straw treatment techniques is emphasized later.

In the late 1960s, a simple spray method of alkali treatment was developed. Some of this work was done in India (9, 10). This was an improvement over the Beckmann method in that less alkali is used (only about 4 kg/100 kg of straw), no washing is necessary, and recovery is 100 per cent. On the other hand, digestibility increases by only about 10 units on average. Greater increases in digestibility are theoretically possible with higher levels of alkali (up to 8 kg/100 kg of straw), but animals cannot tolerate such large amounts of sodium. Improved rates of weight gain in growing calves of 0.1 - 0.15 kg/head/day have been found by treating straw by this method (see, for example, data in Table 2) (11). The economics are also favourable, as the table shows.

TABLE 2. The Performance of Calves on Untreated and Treated (Spray Method) Straw Diets

  Untreated Treated*
Straw consumption (kg/day) 4.5 6.0
Groundnut cake consumption (kg/day) 0.8 1.0
Feed cost (Rs/head/day) 0.95 1.39
Liveweight gain (kg/day) 0.25 0.42
Days to gain 100 kg 400 238
Feed cost/kg gain (Rs) 3.80 3.31
NaOH energy input (MJ) additional energy stored as body-weight gain (MJ)   12.1**
NaOH energy input (MJ)

total energy stored (MJ)

NaOH energy input (MJ)total protein energy stored (MJ)   5.0***

Source: Singh et al. (1 1).

* Straw was treated with 3.3 kg NaOH/100 kg straw.

** For the method of calculating this value, see Annex 2.

*** Protein energy content of the gains made by the calves is assumed to be half the total energy stored.

On the basis of this limited information, a set of recommendations for farmers has been prepared (Annex 3). A few progressive farmers here and there are treating their straw with this method. Demonstrations of straw treatment (alkali and urea) have also been done on animals in one dairy development project, and some experience has been gained. On the whole, however, there is a need for further testing under village conditions. A proposal for doing this has recently been made and is described in a later section. The exercise presented in Annex 4 indicates the type of evaluation of straw treatment that should be made, and the information that needs to be generated.

Two newer methods, more effective than the spray treatment, are potentially applicable under Indian village conditions, and experimentation has already begun on these. One is the modified Beckmann, also known as the Torgrimsby method. Straw is soaked as in the original Beckmann method, but washed in a fixed amount of water, which is then recycled. Straw is effectively treated as in the original method, but residual sodium is less completely removed. Recovery is 100 percent. Two digestibility trials to date have yielded increased digestibility values of 15 and 18 units. Further work is in progress in India (D.V. Rangnekar, personal communication, 1978) as well as in Europe (F. Sundstol, personal communication, 1978).

The second method is spray treatment and stacking. If the amount of NaOH solution applied to the straw is kept low (not more than 10 - 151/100 kg of straw), and the straw is stacked (minimum size of stack 3 tons), the heat generated in the chemical reaction between the alkali and the straw causes a temperature rise in the stack. This temperature rise increases the efficiency of treatment (units increase in digestibility/kg of NaOH used). To apply such small amounts of solution uniformly, specially designed treater-mixers must be used. Such treater-mixers have been designed for use in factories and for on-farm use in Europe. Capacity is 2 - 6 tons/hour.

A small machine, operated by a 5 hp electric motor and giving an output of 0.3 tons/day, has been developed in India (12). Farmers always stack their straw after threshing; it is envisaged that they could put it through this machine at the time of stacking. Many farmers already have an electric motor on their pump or wheat thresher that could be used on a straw treater. Manufacturing cost without the motor is about Rs 3,000. Evaluation of straw treated in this way is in progress.

Supplementation of Straw with Nitrogen and Minerals

It has been conclusively demonstrated that treated straw will not be digested to its full potential digestibility if the nitrogen content of the diet is below 1.2 per cent (E.R. Orskov, personal communication, 1977) (13). This corresponds to rates of supplementation of 1.5 per cent for urea or 10 - 15 per cent for oilcake. These levels of supplementation must be ensured if straw is to be treated. From the point of view of the ability of the animal to utilize the energy available from treated straw, these levels of supplementation must be considered a bare minimum. Under average village conditions, animals, particularly growing animals, do not receive even this level of 1.2 per cent nitrogen in the diet from the meagre supplements of grass/forage and milling offals they are fed. Thus, a urea supplement is an essential adjunct to straw treatment. Further experimental work on this subject is proposed in a later section.

In many parts of India, animals suffer from deficiency diseases such as rickets and anaemia. Some progress has been made in mapping these areas. General purpose mineral mixtures are now widely available, although still not as widely used as they might be. Obviously, where a mineral is the first limiting factor for productivity, increasing energy intake by straw treatment will be futile.

Field testing and demonstration of straw treatment

Among crop scientists it is now widely recognized that the on-farm testing of new varieties and production techniques can lead to greater success in developing usable new technology and also save time. On-farm tests also have a potential demonstration value. Experience with on-farm testing of maize in Pakistan has been described by Palmer (14). The need for onfarm testing of new animal husbandry techniques is even more essential, because it is impossible to simulate village conditions in which livestock are reared on an experiment station. At the same time, it is as essential to demonstrate new techniques on a farmer's animals as it is to demonstrate new cropping practices on his fields. For these reasons, I have suggested a field testing and demonstration project for straw treatment (4).

In this project, the preferred method of straw treatment on a suitable scale (i.e., individual farm or village co-operative society) would be used to treat straw fed to village animals. The treatment and supplementation of straw will be super-imposed on the feeding and general management regime normally followed by each farmer. A standard experimental design will be used. The "herd" or statistical population from which the experimental animals will be selected will comprise all the heifers in the age group of six to nine months in a cluster of four to six villages. These animals will be divided into groups of three on the basis of age and similarity of management conditions.

Each one of these three animals will be randomly allotted to one of three dietary treatments. The results can then be analyzed statistically in the manner appropriate to a randomized block design. Because management practices will be a long-term one, about 60 animals should probably be taken at the outset in order to obtain statistically significant results. The heifers will continue on the experiment from the age of 6 months until they complete their first lactation.

For each village, or for each two villages, one man will be employed to guide farmers in the feeding of the selected animals according to the experimental plan. He will weigh feeds offered and refused on one day per month, measure the animal to estimate weight, weigh milk produced by animals when they come into lactation, and record the dates of first oestrus, service, and calving. Caustic soda, urea, minerals, and any other supplement to be used will be supplied free of cost to the participating farmers.

The three experimental diets will be:

Existing farmer feeding practices. Existing farmer feeding practices, except that urea is sprayed on straw and a mineral supplement is fed. Existing farmer feeding practices, except that straw is alkali treated, urea is Sprayed on straw, and a mineral supplement is fed

If the protein supply from grass or cultivated legume forage in some seasons is adequate, the use of urea would be discontinued at such times.

The project has been proposed as a co-operative one among institutions in several countries where straw is traditionally fed to livestock. As far as possible, these institutions would be those which have successful livestock development programmes based upon co-operative societies so that a regular supply of materials (caustic soda, urea, mineral mixture) can be guaranteed and, after the project is over, the farmer can pay for these conveniently (e.g., by adjusting their costs against income from milk sales).

General considerations

While experimental data are limited, we may nevertheless attempt to evaluate straw treatment in a wider context. Indeed, it is essential that we make the attempt at this stage when we are contemplating a rapid expansion in our research and extension programmes on straw treatment.

A major concern in India should be the high support-energy cost of alkali treatment. Support-energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels, from falling water, and nuclear fission as opposed to the energy of the sun that is trapped on the farm. In the systems of farming that have come into existence in Europe and North America during the era of cheap fossil fuels, support-energy costs have been found to be very high and are, in the present changed circumstances, a cause for concern. Krummel and Dritschilo (15) have calculated the support-energy cost of producing one MJ animal protein in the United States. These figures are 6 MJ for milk and 32 MJ for beef. The corresponding support-energy costs for feed alone are 4 and 20 MJ, respectively. The values for beef include, however, the maintenance of cow herds as well as the rearing of animals for slaughter. In India, support-energy costs for animal protein production are near zero, as by-products are fed and few chemicals or machines are used. The introduction of alkali treatment would, at one stroke, raise support-energy costs to as much as 5 MJ/MJ animal protein (Table 2, Annex 4).

If all 200 million tons of straw produced in India every year were to be treated, some 10 million tons of NaOH would have to be manufactured at an energy cost of 510 x 109 MJ. This is three times the amount of energy currently expended in manufacturing nitrogenous fertilizers in one year (1,774,000 tons N x 84,000 MJ/ton). Not only is the support-energy of this magnitude not available, it can also be argued that even if it were, it would best be used to manufacture more nitrogen fertilizer, which would provide more additional feed energy than the NaOH would, and at the same time solve many other problems. One example will serve to indicate the strength of this argument.

One kg of urea applied to crops in India, under favourable conditions, can return 10 kg of grain, or 100 kg of green forage. In the example given in Annex 4, a buffalo cow would consume 883 kg of NaOH in her lifetime. This is equivalent to 1,272 kg of urea which, if applied to crops, would produce enough additional grain to feed the buffalo 3 kg per day for life, much more - probably three times more - than would be needed to produce the increment of milk resulting from the treatment of straw. If this urea were applied to non-leguminous forage crops, the additional yield would be enough to feed the buffalo 30 kg of forage per day, again much more than would be needed to produce the increment of milk produced by straw treatment.

Aside from energy considerations, NaOH treatment may prove unacceptable in the long run because of the sodium pollution it would cause. Newer methods of NaOH treatment avoid river pollution at the treatment stage, but each 100 kg of treated straw fed contains 3 - 5 kg of sodium that will find its way into soil and rivers. In the humid countries of Northern Europe this may not be a cause for concern, but in an arid country like India, with vast areas already afflicted with soil salinity, it could be. In the German Democratic Republic, KOH is being used extensively in place of NaOH (A. Hennig, personal communication, 1978), but soils in that country must be fertilized with potassium; Indian soils need not be. Indian soils also do not need calcium, which makes Ca (OH)2 less attractive than it might otherwise be. In any case, these alkalis are also expensive to manufacture in terms of support-energy.

What, then, are the alternatives? There are several possibilities, and each of them is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Unfortunately, considerable research and development effort would be needed to develop these alternatives to alkali treatment. By drawing attention to these alternatives now, however, the necessary effort may be stimulated more quickly.

The biological fungal treatment of straws needs no support-energy, but the fungi derive some of the energy they need from carbohydrates in the straw that the ruminant could use itself. Thus, overall energy efficiency (milk energy output/straw energy input) might not be improved. However, there are inadequate data (4). More information should be obtained quickly in order to evaluate this method of treatment critically. There would be no pollution with this method.

Ammonia treatment offers the advantage that it can help meet the protein needs of the animal consuming the straw, and later on the same nitrogen in dung and urine can help to meet the nitrogen needs of crops. It does not cause pollution. However, the methods developed thus far for farm use employ NH3 gas and would, therefore, be difficult or impossible to use in Indian villages.

One interesting possibility is that suggested by Oji and Mowat (16). They sprayed straw with a urea solution and packed it in a silo so as to exclude air. The urea was broken down to NH3, thus subjecting the straw to an alkaline treatment and, at the same time, increasing its nitrogen content. This method deserves further testing. A disadvantage is the capital cost of constructing silos; only the more affluent farmers in India could afford to do so.

A final alternative is the breeding of varieties of cereal crops that have highly digestible straw. The extent to which this is possible is not known at present. The genetic variability that may exist would have to be ascertained. Next, the compatibility of highly digestible straw with high grain yields would also have to be determined. Some varietal differences do exist (17). Growing cereal varieties that produce straw of high intrinsic digestibility could be combined with urea treatment in a silo.


Indian experience with alkali treatment of straw is reviewed. Earlier experiments with the Beckmann treatment of wheat and paddy straws confirmed European work with respect to the effectiveness of the method. It was also found to be profitable to treat straw under village conditions, but because suitable extension machinery and concepts were lacking, it was not popularized. Scarcity of water was another limiting factor. There have been recent experiments with newer methods, but it must be determined whether they will be economical under village conditions. A method of on-farm testing and demonstration is suggested to accomplish this, and at the same time popularize straw treatment.

An analysis of the energy cost of straw treatment with alkali under Indian conditions suggests that it may be unacceptably high. Alkali treatment also poses a distinct pillution problem in India. The rapid development of alternative methods is therefore urged. The use of wood rotting fungi or ammonia (straw treated in silos with urea) is suggested, as well as an effort to breed cereal varieties with highly digestible straw.

Annex 1. The energy efficiency of the two-stage, feed-fuel processing of straw in indian villages

Table 3 shows the calculation of energy efficiency for different methods of using dung as fuel. The following factors are taken into consideration.


  Traditional open fire-place Closed fireplace with chimney Biogas production
Energy content (MJ) of:      
Original straw 100 100 100
Resulting animal products and services 4.6 4.6 4.6
Resulting dung 55 55 55
Gas produced from dung     15.4
Useful energy obtained from dung (MJ) 5.5 11.0 9.2
Deduction for energy equivalent of nitrogen lost (MJ) - 1.5 - 1.5  
Total useful energy recovered from straw 8 14.1 13.8
Efficiency of processing (%) 8.6 14.1 13.8

1. 6.9 kg straw containing 90 per cent dry matter and having a rate of combustion of 16 MJ/kg dry matter contains 100 MJ combustible energy. This amount of straw is approximately the daily consumption by an adult bovine.

2. The efficiency of animal production on a typical straw diet is calculated (see Annex 4) to be 4.6 per cent. This value is for the diet as a whole, the value of the straw component is probably slightly less.

3. 18.3 kg of dung containing 20 per cent dry matter and having a rate of combustion of 15 MJ/kg dry matter (the digestibility of straw energy averages 45 per cent) = 55 MJ.

4. 18.3 kg wet dung x 37 I biogas/kg wet dung x 0.61 CH4/l biogas x 0.038 MJ/l CH4 = 15.4 MJ.

5. The efficiency of burning dung in an open fireplace is estimated to be 10 per cent, in a close fireplace with chimney, 20 per cent, and in a gas burner, 60 per cent (2).

6. Assuming that 50 per cent of the nitrogen contained in straw is recovered in dung, the manufacturing energy value of this nitrogen is:

7. Total useful energy = energy contained in animal products and services + useful heat energy - deduction for energy equivalent of nitrogen lost.

8. Efficiency of processing = (total useful energy obtained x 100) / (energy content of original straw)

Annex 2. Method of calculating the value presented in table 2 for the efficiency of naoh energy usage

The MJ of NaOH energy input per MJ additional energy stored as body-weight gain was calculated as follows.

1,000 kg untreated straw provided for

1,000 kg treated straw provided for

In 222 days a calf fed untreated straw also consumed

222 x 0.8 = 178 kg oilcake

In 167 days a calf fed treated straw also consumed

167 x 1.0 = 167 kg oilcake

In 222 days a calf fed untreated straw gained

222 x 0.25 = 55.5 kg

In 167 days a calf fed treated straw gained

167 x 0.42 = 70.0 kg

Therefore, the treatment of straw increased weight gain by 70.0 - 55.5 = 14.5 kg/1,000 kg straw. (This figure is conservative, because a calf fed treated straw consumed slightly less oilcake/1,000 kg straw than the one fed untreated straw.) The energy value of this bodyweight gain is taken as 9.6 MJ/kg (calves about 1-year-old gaining at a rate of 0.40 kg/day[19]), or 139.2 MJ for 14.5 kg. The manufacturing energy cost of NaOH is estimated to be 51 MJ/kg;

1,000 kg straw x 3.3 kg NaOH/100 kg x 51 = 1,683.

Annex 3. Recommendations to farmers on the treatment of straw

A simple method of treating straw with alkali has recently been developed that can boost the rate of gain of growing animals and the output of adult stock substantially and cheaply. The digestibility of straw is low - only 40 - 50 per cent - and thus it does not give much energy to the animals that eat it. The alkali treatment of straw increases digestibility to 50 - 60 per cent. Animals also eat 10 - 20 per cent more of the treated straw. As a result they get much more energy (up to 50 per cent more) when straw is treated.

The method of treatment is simple and requires nothing more than a garden sprinkling can, a hay fork, a pair of rubber gloves, and a pair of goggles. The latter two are for safety, as caustic soda can burn the skin and eyes if it splashes. Care must, therefore, be taken in handling it. In case of accident, the affected area should be immediately washed with large amounts of clean water Once the alkali is sprinkled on the straw it is no longer harmful. The straw must be broken or chaffed in order to be treated uniformly and easily. The straw to be treated is piled onto a pucca floor. One man sprinkles the caustic soda solution over the straw and another man turns the pile simultaneously with the hay fork. It is important to achieve uniform wetting of the straw.

The caustic soda solution can be made from solid flakes or from a lye solution. The latter contains 50 - 60 per cent caustic soda and is less difficult to handle when making up the solution for treatment, but must be stored and transported in drums, which is not as convenient as handling caustic soda flakes in bags. Usually the cost of caustic soda (dry flakes equivalent) is less, often only half the cost, in the form of lye than in the form of flakes, and for this reason is preferred. If flakes must be used, it is advisable to make up a 50 per cent stock solution in a drum; this makes the daily preparation of the dilute solution used in treatment more convenient. For treating the straw, make up a 2 per cent (2 kg/100 I) solution of flakes, or a 4 per cent (4 kg/100 I) solution of lye. Two litres of solution are needed for each kilogramme of straw. The sprayed straw will be moist, dark yellow in colour, and have a slight smell of caustic soda. A fresh batch should be prepared every day, though it should not be fed until 24 hours after it is treated. This is because the caustic soda continues to react slowly with the straw for 24 hours. Other feeds should be mixed with the treated straw only at the time of feeding it.

In order to obtain the maximum benefit from treated straw, it should further be treated with urea. The urea should be made into a solution (1 kg/10 1) and sprinkled on the straw at the rate of 1 1/10 kg of straw just before feeding. A complete mineral mixture should also be added to the diet.

Experiments have shown that a combination of alkali and urea treatment of straw can boost the daily rate of gain in growing stock by at least 0.2 kg/day. This will be equivalent to doubling the rate of weight gain or more, which means a much earlier first calving for heifers and start of working life for bullocks.

These recommendations are for average animals. Those fed large amounts of concentrates and/or green forage may not respond to straw treatment unless the amount of alkali is increased. If straw constitutes only about half of the diet (on a dry-feed equivalent basis), it should be treated with a 4 per cent solution of caustic soda flakes or an 8 per cent solution of lye. All additional feeds should be mixed at the time of feeding. Urea treatment may be dispensed with. A mineral supplement will, however, still be desirable.

Animals given treated straw will need to drink more water than usual, and provision should be made for this.

Annex 4. Calculated efficiency of milk production by straw-fed village buffaloes

Table 4 shows the calculation of milk-production efficiency. The data for the consumption of various feeds on untreated straw diet represent average village feeding rates and are taken from Amble et al. (20). Lactation milk yield for the untreated straw diet is estimated as the national average, as is the frequency of calving, namely, once every two years (21). Urea energy is not included in the total for energy input, on the grounds that much of it can be recovered and used as a fertilizer on crops. This procedure results in crediting the NaOH with all the improvements in productivity; thus the last three figures in the table, relating to the MJ NaOH energy per MJ milk or milk protein energy, are underestimated.



straw diet


straw diet

Mature weight (kg) 400 400
Life span (years) 11 11
Age at first calving 5 35
Number of lactations/lifetime 3 4
Lactation yield (kg) 900 1,200
Lifetime milk production (kg) 2,700 4,800
Daily feed consumption (average over lifetime; kg)straw 4.5 55
grass/forage 6 6
concentrates 0.250 0.250
urea, 1% straw 0.055  
NaOH, 4% of straw 0.220  
Lifetime milk consumption (kg) 100 100
Lifetime energy intake (MJ)    
from feeds only 372,902 430,703
from feeds + NaOH 475,751  
Lifetime energy output (MJ)    
milk 12,420 22,084
calves 600 800
carcass 4,000 4,000
Total 17,020 26,884


4.6 6.2





For the method of calculating the ratio MJ NaOH energy/MJ output, see Annex 2. The increased production due to alkali treatment is a very rough estimate. Growth rate can be doubled, leading to a reduction in age at first calving of about 1.5 years, making it possible for an animal to have one extra lactation in its lifetime. Data from a substitution trial with milk cows (22) indicate that treated straw fed ad libitum to cows is equal to at least 0.5 kg concentrate mixture/day. This, in turn, should be equal to 1 litre of milk/day in village buffaloes on the plane of nutrition indicated in the table (23). Energy values (MJ/kg) used in calculations are as follows, assuming straw and concentrates contain 90 per cent dry matter and grass/forage contains 25 per cent.

Straw 14.4
Grass/forage 3.6
Concentrates 16.2
Milk 4.6
Protein in milk 1.0
NaOH (manufacturing cost) 51.0 (24)

Assumed energy contents of carcasses (MJ) are:

Calf 200
Buffalo 4,000
Protein in calf 150
Protein in buffalo 3,000

The efficiency of a bullock with similar feed intake will be only slightly less than the buffalo in this example (untreated straw) if it works 1,200 hr/yr over a 6-year working life and has an 11-year total life span; i.e., 0.5 hp x 0.7455 kw x 1,200 hour x 6 x 3.6 MJ/kwh = 9,662 MJ energy output (2).


1. J.J. Patil, "The Gobar Gas Plant: Its Development, Present Status and Future,' paper presented to the ESCAP/NCST Seminar on Biogas Utilization and Technology, held in New Delhi 25 July to 2 August 1975.

2. A. K.N. Reddy and K. K. Prasad, "Technological Alternatives and the Indian Energy Crisis," Economic and Political Weekly. Special Number, pp. 1465 - 1502. August 1977.

3. H.R. Srinivasan, "Biogas (Gobar Gas) and Manure from the Waste of Farm Animals," paper submitted to the UNEP/FAO Seminar on Residue Management - The Management of Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Wastes, held in Rome, 18 - 21 January 1977.

4. M.G. Jackson, "Treating Straw for Animal Feeding: An Assessment of Its Technical and Economic Feasibility," FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 10, FAO, Rome, 1978.

5. K.C. Sen, S.C. Ray, and S.K. Talapatra, "The Nutritive Value of Alkali-Treated Cereal Straws," Indian J. Vet. Sci. 12: 263 (1942).

6. S.J. Watson, "Increasing the Feeding Value of Cereal Straws," J. Royal Agric. Soc. England 101 (Part II): 37 (1941).

7. T. Homb, "Norwegische Erfahrungen bei der strohaufschliessung nach dem Beckmanschen Verfahren," Futterkonservierung, Frankf./Main 2: 129 (1956).

8. N.D. Kehar, "Effect of Feeding Aikali-Treated Straw on the Growth of Young Cattle," Indian J. Vet. Sci. 24: 189 (1954).

9. Chandra, Suresh, and M.G. Jackson, "A Study of Various Chemical Treatments to Remove Lignin from Coarse Rough-ages and Increase Their Digestibility," J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 77: 11 (19711.

10. M. Singh and M.G. Jackson, "The Effect of Different Levels of Sodium Hydroxide Spray Treatment of Wheat Straw on Consumption and Digestibility by Cattle," J. Agric. Sci Camb. 77: 5 (1971).

11. M. Singh, M.L. Verma, M.G. Jackson, and K.V. Pitchaiah, in Improved Utilization of Agricultural Waste Materials and Industrial By-products as Livestock Feed Research Progress Report 1969 - 1974, pp. 92 - 102, G.B. Pant University, Pantnagar, India, 1975.

12. U.S. Agrawal, P.C. Sah, and R.C. Jakhmola, in Investigations on Agricultural By-products and Industrial Waste Materials for Evolving Economic Rations for Livestock. Research Progress Report 1976 - 1977, pp. 26 - 37, G.B. Pant University, Pantnagar, India, 1977.

13. J.A. Kategile, "Factors Affecting the in vivo Digestibility and the Voluntary Feed Intake of Sodium Hydroxide-Treated Maize-Cob Diets and the Performance of Heifers Fed on Sodium Hydroxide-Treated Maize-Cob-Based Diets," Ph.D. thesis, University of Dar-esSalaam, 1977.

14. A.F.E. Palmer, "An On-Farm Research System: Two Papers on Maize Research in Pakistan," Asian Report Series No. 4, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, New Delhi.

15. J. Krummel and W. Dritschilo, "Resource Costs of Animal Protein Production," Wld. Anim. Rev. 21: 6 (1977).

16. U.I. Oji and D.N. Mowat, "Breakdown of Urea to Ammonia for Treating Corn Stover," Abstract Am. Anim. Sci. Soc., 1977.

17. J. Keran, E. Coxworth, H. Nicholson, and R. Chaplin, Ammoniation of Straw to Improve Its Nutritional Value as a Feed for Ruminant Animals, University of Saskatchawan Agricultural Extension Publication 329, 1977.

18. J. A. Tatchel I, The Energy Input into a Bag of Fertilizer, I Cl Agricultural Division, Birmingham (cited by K.I. Blaxter, "The Energetics of British Agriculture," J. Sci. Food Agric., 76: 1055 [1975]).

19. K.L. Blaxter, The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants p. 169, Hutchinson, London, 1962.

20. V.N. Amble, V.V.R. Murthy, K.V. Sathe, and B.B.P.S. Goel, "Milk Production of Bovines in India and Their Feed Availability, " Indian J. Vet Sci. Anim. Husb. 35: 22 (1965).

21. Government of India, Indian Livestock Census. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, New Delhi, 1972.

22. K.V. Pitchaiah and M.G. Jackson, in Improved Utilization of Agricultural Waste Materials and Industrial By-products as Livestock Feed, Research Progress Report 1969 1974, pp. 102 - 108, G.B. Pant University, Pantnagar, India, 1975.

23. J.W. Meilor and B. De Ponteves, "Effect of Growth in Demand for Milk on the Demand for Concentrate Feeds: India, 1951 - 76," Indian J. Agric. Econ. 19: 131 (1964).

24. G. Leach and M. Slesser, "Energy Equivalents of Network Inputs to Food Producing Processes," report of Strathclyde University, Glasgow, 1973 - cited by E. Owen, in A. N. Duckham, J.G.W. Jones, and E.H. Roberts (eds.), Food Production and Consumption: The Efficiency of Human Food Chains and Nutrient Cycles, pp. 289 - 318, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.

Discussion summary

Straw is more effectively treated with sodium hydroxide than with ammonia for increasing digestibility. However, urea would have the advantage of introducing the elements of nitrogen for protein synthesis.

It was questioned whether the financial incentive would suffice to encourage farmers to adopt straw treatment, as it takes two or three seasons for the beneficial effects of treated straw to be of evident significance. For this reason, it was recommended that straw treatment projects be run in conjunction with milk production ones, because increased milk production is a convincing indicator of improved nutrition in cows fed treated straw.

Straw treatment projects are suitable at both the village and individual farm level. It was queried whether money might not be better spent on buying groundnut meal rather than on straw treatment; it was pointed out that straw is far more plentiful than groundnut.