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

net/publication/280690943

Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance,

Milk Production and Composition in Sahiwal Cows

Article  in  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India - Section B: Biological Sciences · July 2015
DOI: 10.1007/s40011-015-0616-8

CITATIONS READS

5 402

5 authors, including:

Ranjan Kumar Mohanta

Central Rice Research Institute
61 PUBLICATIONS   355 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bypass fat for dairy ruminants - which one to opt and why? View project

Supplementation of mineral mixture and common salt at critical periods of life of dairy cows to augment productivity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ranjan Kumar Mohanta on 26 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci.
DOI 10.1007/s40011-015-0616-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility,
Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production and Composition in Sahiwal
Cows
Brij Kishor Singh1 • Ramesh Chandra Chopra1 • Sacchida Nanda Rai1
Mahendra Pratap Verma1 • Ranjan Kumar Mohanta1,2
Received: 14 December 2014 / Revised: 28 April 2015 / Accepted: 6 July 2015
 The National Academy of Sciences, India 2015
Abstract Twelve lactating Sahiwal cows were divided
into three equal groups on the basis of milk yield (mean
8.39 L/day), parity and body weight. All the animals were
fed concentrate mixture along with wheat straw and green
oats (Concentrate mixture and roughages as 50:50; green
oat and wheat straw as 60:40) as total mixed ration for
126 days. While group T1 was fed ration consisting of
concentrate mixture without any additional mineral mix-
ture and common salt, group T2 had 2 % mineral mixture
and 1 % salt in their concentrate mixture and group T3 had
20 % seaweed (Sargassum wightii) in their concentrate
mixture without additional mineral mixture and salt. A
metabolism trial of 7 days collection period was conducted
on all the experimental animals after 56 days of experi-
ment. The results showed that there were no significant
changes in nutrient intake and digestibility of dry matter,
organic matter, crude protein, crude fibre and ether extract.
Similarly, there were no significant changes in milk com-
position (protein, fat, lactose, solid-not-fat) in different
treatment groups. However, seaweed supplemented group
had significantly (P \ 0.05) higher milk yield and 4 % fat
corrected milk yield than the other groups. Thus, incor-
poration of brown seaweed in the diet of lactating Sahiwal
cows to the extent of 20 % in concentrate mixture
increased their milk yield.
& Ranjan Kumar Mohanta
mohanta.ranjan@gmail.com
1
Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division, National Dairy Research
Institute, Karnal 132001, India
2
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Central Rice Research Institute,
Cuttack 753006, India
•
Keywords Seaweed
Nutrient digestibility

Milk production
Sahiwal cows
Introduction
Global livestock population currently stands at 1426, 195,
1093 and 924 millions for cattle, buffalo, sheep and goat,
which will further increase due to continuous demand for
livestock products [1]. This huge population has to sustain
with adequate feed ingredients in developed counties,
whereas they face huge shortage of feeds and supplements
in developing and poor countries. The cost of conventional
feeds and more particularly the mineral ingredients is also
high and increasing day-by-day [2]. Therefore, the shift in
attention goes to the byproducts and non-conventional feed
ingredients. Aquatic plants like seaweeds are the classic
example of this type of feed resources, which are available
in coastal areas even during draught period [3]. These
autotrophic large marine multicellular, multicolor algae
that grow almost exclusively in the shallow water at the
edge of all the oceans accumulate on certain coastal zones
in certain seasons each year.
Seaweeds have high carbohydrate, protein, fiber, vita-
min, and mineral contents [4–6]. High mineral content
makes it a potential additive to animal feedstuffs for
replacing a part or whole of the mineral supplementation.
Seaweed also contains many biologically active com-
pounds such as fucoidan, betaine, and glucans [7, 8] which
enhance animal’s immunity [9] and carcass quality [10]. In
growing rabbits, dietary seaweed supplementation
improved live weight gain, feed conversion ratio, and the
economic efficiency [11]. Similarly, seaweed feeding met
nutritive requirement of sheep [12]. In view of these facts,
the present experiment was conducted to compare the
123
 B. K. Singh et al.

effect of replacing the mineral mixture of concentrate
mixture by seaweed supplementation in the diet on nutrient
utilization and production performance in cows.
Material and Methods
Animals, Grouping and Management
Twelve lactating Sahiwal cows (345.4 ± 9.7 kg body
weight) in their first or second calving (mean 1.7) and early
lactation (average 55.8 days post calving) were selected
from the dairy herd, National Dairy Research Institute,
Karnal and divided randomly into three equal groups on the
basis of their milk yield, parity and body weight. Animals
were fed concentrate mixture along with wheat straw and
green oats (concentrate mixture and roughages as 50:50;
green oat and wheat straw as 60:40) as total mixed ration
(TMR) for 126 days of feeding trial. While cows in T1
group were offered ration consisting of concentrate mixture
without any additional mineral mixture and common salt,
group T2 had 2 % mineral mixture and 1 % salt in their
concentrate mixture and group T3 had 20 % seaweed
(Sargassum wightii) in their concentrate mixture without
additional mineral mixture and salt (Table 1). All the cows
were fed individually to meet their nutritional requirement
[13]. Concentrate mixture, wheat straw and green oats
fodder were offered in the form of TMR at 9.00 A.M. in
morning and at 4.00 P.M. in evening daily. Clean drinking
water was offered individually thrice a day ad lib. at the
time of milking, i.e. 6 A.M., 12 noon and 6 P.M. Dry
matter (DM) intake of each animal was recorded fort-
nightly for five consecutive days during which weighed
amount of concentrate mixture, wheat straw and oats fod-
der were offered daily and the residue was collected after
24 h. The animals were weighed before the start of
experiment and thereafter at fortnightly intervals. Milk
samples were also collected at fortnightly intervals from
morning, noon and evening milking and pooled in pro-
portion to their yield for chemical composition analysis.
Metabolism Trial
A metabolism trial of 7 days collection period was con-
ducted on all the experimental animals after 56 days of trial
after proper adaptation. The body weight of the animals

Table 1 Ingredients and chemical composition of feeds and fodders offered to cows
Parameters Conc I* Conc II* Conc III* Green oat Wheat straw Sargassum wightii

Maize grain 28 36 36 – – –
Wheat bran 38 25 8 – – –
Groundnut cake 22 24 27 – – –
Mustard cake 12 12 9 – – –
Seaweed (S. wightii) 0 0 20 – – –
Mineral mixture* 0 2 0 – – –
Common salt 0 1 0 – – –
Chemical composition (% DM basis)
Organic matter 95.0 93.1 90.0 86.1 90.9 68.0
Crude protein 21.5 21.4 21.9 9.94 3.67 10.1
Ether extract 5.96 5.91 5.42 2.85 1.47 1.10
Crude fibre 9.24 9.09 10.2 26.9 40.7 11.3
Neutral detergent fibre 35.9 34.0 35.6 48.4 80.1 45.9
Acid detergent fibre 16.1 14.5 19.2 29.3 51.8 34.3
Ash 4.98 6.95 10.0 13.9 9.11 32.0
Acid insoluble ash 0.23 0.28 1.66 5.29 4.45 3.57
Calcium (g/kg) 6.64 8.83 9.80 3.09 1.96 19.8
Phosphorus (g/kg) 4.50 5.90 4.30 3.80 1.70 2.00
Copper (mg/kg) 24.6 55.8 19.5 22.3 21.3 13.4
Iron (mg/kg) 172 183 349 473 148 390
Zinc (mg/kg) 60.1 67.7 53.8 24.8 6.8 10.3
Manganese (mg/kg) 58.5 62.2 63.2 89.2 42.4 55.3
* Conc I, Conc II and Conc III refer to concentrate mixture offered to control group (negative control, T1), added mineral mixture (positive
control, T2), seaweed group (T3), respectively

123
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production…

was recorded before and after the metabolism trial. Faeces,
urine and milk were collected on 24 h basis along with the
feed offered and orts. DM was recorded by drying in a hot
air oven [14], pooled for all the days of collection, ground
to pass 1 mm sieve and kept in airtight containers for
further analysis.
Statistical Analysis
Data were statistically analysed by one-way analysis of
variance technique using SPSS software (version 20.0,
IBM SPSS Inc, USA) in accordance with Snedecor and
Cochran [17].

Analytical Techniques
The dried and ground representative samples of concen-
trate mixtures, green fodder, orts and faeces from each cow
were analyzed for proximate [14] and cell wall constituents
[15]. The values were expressed inclusive of ash. Milk
samples were analyzed for fat, protein, lactose and solid-
not-fat (SNF), using precalibrated Milk Analyzer (Lac-
toStar, FUNKE GERBER, Article No 3510, Berlin). Fat
corrected milk (4 % FCM) was calculated by Tyrrell and
Reid method [16].
Results and Discussion
Intake and Utilization of Nutrients
The intake and digestibility of different nutrients by cows
in different treatment groups are presented in Table 2 and
DM intake at fortnightly intervals in Fig. 1. It revealed that
intake of nutrients (kg) like DM, digestible crude protein,
digestible crude fibre, digestible ether extract and total
digestible nutrients was statistically similar (P [ 0.05) in

Table 2 Digestibility of nutrients, balance of nitrogen and plane of nutrition in different groups
Parameters Treatments
T1 T2 T3

Body weight, kg 338.9 ± 18.7 369.6 ± 13.4 334.2 ± 16.5

Dry matter intake (kg/d) 9.28 ± 1.4 9.76 ± 0.8 9.55 ± 0.7
Nutrient digestibility (%)
Dry matter 67.0 ± 1.1 63.9 ± 1.7 67.7 ± 1.9
Organic matter 69.3 ± 1.0 65.5 ± 1.8 69.3 ± 1.7
Crude protein 66.6 ± 2.5 67.1 ± 2.6 67.0 ± 1.6
Ether extract 67.9 ± 1.6 64.5 ± 2.4 64.6 ± 1.3
Crude fibre 63.9 ± 2.3 63.4 ± 1.5 64.3 ± 2.5
Nitrogen free extract 71.3 ± 1.0 68.9 ± 1.5 72.9 ± 1.5
Nitrogen balance (g/d)
Nitrogen intake 201.9 ± 37.4 207.8 ± 21.9 204.7 ± 20.6
Nitrogen outgo in faeces 65.0 ± 9.0 66.0 ± 7.1 68.6 ± 10.4
Nitrogen outgo in urine 74.9 ± 8.6 79.6 ± 7.2 78.2 ± 2.0
Nitrogen outgo in milk 48.2 ± 14.6 49.8 ± 8.7 45.2 ± 9.2
Total nitrogen outgo 188.1 ± 30.7 195.4 ± 11.3 192.1 ± 20.0
Nitrogen absorbed 62.0 ± 19.8 62.3 ± 7.7 57.8 ± 8.2
Nitrogen balance 13.8 ± 6.8 12.5 ± 13.6 12.6 ± 2.4
Nitrogen absorption as % intake 66.6 ± 2.2 66.1 ± 2.2 67.0 ± 1.4
Nitrogen balance as % intake 6.82 ± 3.2 6.0 ± 5.3 6.2 ± 1.2
Plane of nutrition
Dry matter intake (kg/100 kg BW) 2.73 ± 0.41 2.64 ± 0.17 2.89 ± 0.29
Dry matter intake (g/W0.75) 117.7 ± 17.4 115.7 ± 7.6 123.3 ± 11.3
Digestible crude protein intake (g/day) 856 ± 183 867 ± 119 850 ± 64
0.75
Digestible crude protein intake, (g/W ) 10.9 ± 2.4 10.2 ± 1.2 11.0 ± 1.0
Total digestible nutrients intake, kg/day 6.02 ± 0.86 6.17 ± 0.61 6.07 ± 0.35
Total digestible nutrients intake (kg/100 kg BW) 1.78 ± 0.27 1.67 ± 0.13 1.83 ± 0.14
Total digestible nutrients intake (g/kg W0.75) 76.5 ± 11.2 73.0 ± 5.9 78.1 ± 5.3
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive
control) and seaweed group, respectively

123
 B. K. Singh et al.

different groups irrespective of treatments (Table 2).
However, Leupp et al. [18] found positive effects on DM
intake when brown seaweed meal was included in the diet
of steers fed low-quality hay. Similar to authors’ findings,
feeding of seaweed extract (Gracilaria spp.) did not affect
the DM intake in lactating cross-bred cows when fed 0, 10
and 20 g of seaweed extract per day in different treatment
groups [19]. Similarly, brown seaweed (Undaria pinnati-
fida) supplementation (800 g/day) in diets of dairy cows
had no significant effect on DM intake [20]. In a similar
experiment, supplementation of Laminaria hyperborea or
L. digitata seaweed extracts alone or in combination did
not have any effect on feed intake in weaned pigs [21]. No
adverse effect of the brown seaweed waste (4 % of diet)
supplementation on DM intake was found in Holstein dairy
cows for 90 days [22].
The digestibility coefficients of various nutrients in
lactating Sahiwal cows, fed three types of concentrate
mixtures along with wheat straw and green oats, were also
statistically insignificant (P [ 0.05) indicating that feeding
of Sargassum wightii in the concentrate diet to the extent of
20 % had no significant effect on nutrient intake and their
digestibility coefficients. Similar digestibility of different
nutrients in swine diet was also reported on inclusion of
Ascophyllum nodosum (an edible brown macroalga) extract
treatment groups. As evident from the data (Table 2) the N
balance (g/day) as percent of N intake and percent of N
absorbed during metabolism trial was statistically similar
among different treatment groups. In contrast, inclusion of
A. nodosum extract numerically reduced N digestion and
retention in pigs [23].
Milk Production and Composition
The average initial daily milk yield at the beginning of the
experiment in treatment groups T1, T2 and T3 was
8.43 ± 2.03, 8.30 ± 1.11 and 8.43 ± 1.55 kg/day respec-
tively and the corresponding values at the end of experi-
ment were 6.25 ± 1.93, 6.51 ± 0.79 and 8.59 ± 1.82
kg/day, respectively. There was a decreasing trend in milk
yield with the passage of time, indicating that there may be
certain unidentified natural bioactive substances in sea-
weed (T3) which might be responsible for increased milk
production and high sustainability than T2 (2 % mineral
mixture and 1 % salt) and T1 (Fig. 2) groups. The FCM
10
8
Milk yield (kg/day)

[23]. However, positive effects on organic matter

digestibility by brown seaweed meal inclusion were 6
T1
observed in steers fed low-quality hay [18]. In a similar T2
4
experiment, supplementation of L. hyperborea or L. digi- T3
tata seaweed extracts alone or in combination did not affect 2
digestibility of different nutrients in weaned pigs [21].
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Effect on Nitrogen Balance Fortnight of experiment

The intake of nitrogen (N), its outgo through faeces, urine
and milk as well as N absorption and balance (g/day) did
not show any significant difference (P [ 0.05) among the
12
Fig. 2 Fortnightly milk yield (kg/day) in Sahiwal cows in different
groups. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added
mineral mixture (positive control) and seaweed group, respectively
12
Fat corrected milk (kg/day)

10
Dry matter intake (kg/day)

10
8
8
6 T1
6 T1 T2
T2 4
T3
4
T3
2
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fortnights
Fortnight of experiment
Fig. 3 Fortnightly 4 % fat corrected milk production (kg/day) in
Fig. 1 Dry matter intake of animals at different fortnights. T1, T2 Sahiwal cows. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative
and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral control), added mineral mixture (positive control) and seaweed group,
mixture (positive control) and seaweed group, respectively respectively

123
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production…

Table 3 Milk production and composition in Sahiwal cows of different groups

Parameters T1 T2 T3

Average milk yield (kg/d) 7.30a ± 2.30 7.86b ± 1.26 8.75c ± 1.50
a b
Average 4 % fat corrected milk yield (kg/d) 8.40 ± 2.51 9.30 ± 1.52 10.36 ± 1.75c
Milk composition (%)
Total solids 14.2 ± 0.17 14.3 ± 0.19 14.3 ± 0.18
Fat 5.33 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.16 5.37 ± 0.17
Protein 3.27 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.03
Lactose 4.87 ± 0.08 4.93 ± 0.09 4.89 ± 0.08
Solids not fat 8.91 ± 0.03 8.90 ± 0.04 8.93 ± 0.04
Means with different superscripts in a row for a parameter differ significantly (P \ 0.05). Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1,
T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive control) and seaweed group, respectively

Table 4 Fortnightly milk fat and protein content (%) in Sahiwal cows
Fortnight Fat (%) Protein (%)
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

1 4.94 ± 0.21 5.22 ± 0.12 5.13 ± 0.18 3.19 ± 0.04 3.30 ± 0.01 3.37 ± 0.07
2 4.83 ± 0.31 5.15 ± 0.28 5.33 ± 0.14 3.18 ± 0.05 3.26 ± 0.03 3.31 ± 0.08
3 5.17 ± 0.13 4.96 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.21 3.13 ± 0.03 3.29 ± 0.01 3.30 ± 0.01
4 5.02 ± 0.17 4.88 ± 0.25 4.97 ± 0.22 3.24 ± 0.02 3.26 ± 0.02 3.26 ± 0.03
5 5.37 ± 0.16 5.44 ± 0.20 5.23 ± 0.17 3.30 ± 0.01 3.30 ± 0.28 3.24 ± 0.02
6 5.47 ± 0.16 5.51 ± 0.21 5.47 ± 0.23 3.35 ± 0.01 3.34 ± 0.02 3.32 ± 0.03
7 5.69 ± 0.12 5.71 ± 0.09 5.76 ± 0.10 3.34 ± 0.04 3.37 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.02
8 5.77 ± 0.12 5.80 ± 0.05 5.60 ± 0.18 3.36 ± 0.01 3.42 ± 0.02 3.39 ± 0.01
9 5.71 ± 0.10 5.75 ± 0.12 5.50 ± 0.14 3.31 ± 0.03 3.38 ± 0.02 3.37 ± 0.02
Mean 5.33 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.16 5.37 ± 0.17 3.27 ± 0.03 3.32 ± 0.05 3.32 ± 0.03
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive
control) and seaweed group, respectively

Table 5 Fortnightly total solids and solids not fat (%) in milk of different groups
Fortnights Total solids (%) Solids not fat (%)
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

1 13.76 ± 0.21 13.98 ± 0.24 13.99 ± 0.22 8.83 ± 0.05 8.75 ± 0.12 8.85 ± 0.05
2 13.57 ± 0.33 14.04 ± 0.33 14.24 ± 0.13 8.74 ± 0.04 8.89 ± 0.06 8.90 ± 0.05
3 13.94 ± 0.15 13.82 ± 0.19 14.25 ± 0.26 8.77 ± 0.03 8.85 ± 0.05 8.87 ± 0.07
4 13.90 ± 0.19 13.73 ± 0.27 13.93 ± 0.15 8.87 ± 0.08 8.84 ± 0.04 8.95 ± 0.05
5 14.35 ± 0.15 14.30 ± 0.20 14.10 ± 0.14 8.97 ± 0.04 8.86 ± 0.03 8.88 ± 0.04
6 14.47 ± 0.14 14.43 ± 0.23 14.38 ± 0.25 9.00 ± 0.03 8.92 ± 0.04 8.90 ± 0.05
7 14.69 ± 0.15 14.74 ± 0.10 14.79 ± 0.12 8.99 ± 0.03 9.03 ± 0.01 9.03 ± 0.03
8 14.78 ± 0.13 14.82 ± 0.06 14.63 ± 0.20 9.01 ± 0.04 9.02 ± 0.01 9.03 ± 0.02
9 14.74 ± 0.09 14.73 ± 0.14 14.47 ± 0.16 9.02 ± 0.01 8.98 ± 0.02 8.98 ± 0.04
Mean 14.24 ± 0.17 14.28 ± 0.19 14.30 ± 0.18 8.91 ± 0.03 8.90 ± 0.04 8.93 ± 0.04
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation. T1, T2 and T3 refer to control group (negative control), added mineral mixture (positive
control) and seaweed group, respectively

yield also followed similar pattern (Fig. 3). In contrast to affect milk production in cows. It is also reported that
authors’ finding, supplementation of 80 g A. nodo- Sargassum spp. of seaweed can be fed up to the extent of
sum/cow/day [24], hydrolyzed A. nodosum [25] did not 30 % in the concentrate mixture without any significant

123

changes in milk yield and FCM production in Kankrej
cows [26]. However, similar to authors’ findings, milk
production was improved by supplementation of A. nodo-
sum meal [27] or inclusion of 2 % seaweed-meals
(Macrocystis pyrifera) in the concentrate ration in dairy
cows [28]. Increase in milk production was also observed
by brown seaweed waste (4 % of diet) supplementation in
Holstein dairy cows fed for 90 days [22].
Total solids, fat, SNF, lactose and protein content in milk
were similar (P [ 0.05) in all treatment groups from first
fortnight to ninth fortnights and there was no significant dif-
ference among different treatment groups (Tables 3, 4, 5).
However, in related studies, seaweed feeding increased milk
protein and fat content in cows [28], whereas A. nodosum meal
supplementation increased milk production and milk protein
content in dairy cows [29]. However, similar to authors’
finding, supplementation of 80 g A. nodosum/cow/day did not
affect milk protein and fat production in lactating Holstein
cows [24]. Daily milk yield and composition (fat, protein,
SNF) were not affected by fermented brown seaweed waste
(180 or 360 g; 1–2 % of basal diet) supplementation in Hol-
stein dairy cows for 60 days [29], inclusion of hydrolyzed A.
nodosum in dairy cows [25] or A. nodosum on heat stressed
dairy cows [30]. In another study, it was reported that seaweed
(Sargassum spp.) can be fed to lactating Kankrej cows without
any significant changes in milk composition up to the level of
30 % in concentrate mixture [26].
Conclusion
The incorporation of seaweed to the extent of 20 % in the
concentrate mixture of lactating Sahiwal cows enhanced
the milk production without increasing feed intake and
thereby may safely replace the entire quantity of costly
mineral mixture and may economize the cost of feeding.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Deputy Director General of
Fisheries, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New
Delhi, India for providing the seaweed for the present research under
A.P. Cess Project on ‘‘Cattle feed production from selected seaweeds
of Indian coast’’. The first author thanks ICAR, New Delhi for pro-
viding him financial support in the form of Junior Research Fellow-
ship for his Masters Programme. All authors declare that they have no
conflicts of interest.
References
1. FAOSTAT (2013) Agricultural production database. Food Agric
Organ. http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/default.aspx#ancor
2. López-Alonso M (2012) Trace minerals and livestock: not too
much not too little. ISRN Vet Sci 2012704825. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5402/2012/704825
3. Christaki E, Karatzia M, Florou-Paneri P (2010) The use of algae
in animal nutrition. J Hellenic Vet Med Soc 61:267–276
123
B. K. Singh et al.
4. Okab AB, Samara EM, Abdoun KA, Rafay J, Ondruska L, Par-
kanyi V, Pivko J, Ayoub MA, Al-Haidary AA, Aljumaah RS,
Peter M, Lukac N (2013) Effects of dietary seaweed (Ulva lac-
tuca) supplementation on the reproductive performance of buck
and doe rabbits. J Appl Anim Res 41:347–355
5. Rey-Crespo F, López-Alonso M, Miranda M (2014) The use of
seaweed from the Galician coast as a mineral supplement in
organic dairy cattle. Animal 8:580–586
6. Singh BK, Chopra RC, Rai SN, Verma MP, Mohanta RK (2014)
Effect of feeding seaweed as mineral source on mineral meta-
bolism, blood and milk mineral profile in cows. Proc Natl Acad
Sci Sec B Biol Sci. doi:10.1007/s40011-014-0413-9
7. Archer GS, Friend TH, Caldwell D, Ameiss K, Krawczel PD,
Iacono C, Keen H, Martin T (2008) Impacts of feeding several
components of the seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum on transported
lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 140:258–271
8. Holdt SL, Kraan S (2011) Bioactive compounds in seaweed:
functional food applications and legislation. J Appl Phycol
23:371–393
9. Allen VG, Pond KR, Saker KE, Fontenot JP (2004) U.S. Patent
No. 6,764,69, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington
10. Tavasoli HA, Eslami M, Mamouei M, Chaji M, Bojarpour M
(2009) The effect of Tasco (Ascophyllum nodosum) on carcass
characteristics of finishing male Arabic lambs. Res J Biol Sci
4:1148–1151
11. El-Banna SG (2003) Sea algae supplementation of Baladi rabbits
diet and its implication on certain biochemical parameters. Pest
Control Environ Sci 11:81–96
12. Hansen HR, Hector BL, Feldmann J (2003) A qualitative and
quantitative evaluation of the seaweed diet of North Ronaldsay
sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol 105:21–28
13. NRC (2001) Nutrient requirement of dairy cattle, 7th edn. National
Academy Press, National Research Council, Washington
14. AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis of AOAC interna-
tional, 18th edn. Association of Analytical Communities Inter-
national, Gaithersburg
15. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1967) Forage fibre analysis (appa-
ratus, reagents, procedures, and some application). Agriculture
handbook no. 379, ARS-USDA, Washington
16. Tyrell HF, Reid JT (1965) Prediction of the energy value of
cow’s milk. J Dairy Sci 48:1215–1223
17. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1994) Statistical methods, 8th edn.
Iowa University Press, Ames
18. Leupp JL, Caton JS, Soto-Navarro SA, Lardy GP (2005) Effects
of cooked molasses blocks and fermentation extract or brown
seaweed meal inclusion on intake, digestion, and microbial effi-
ciency in steers fed low-quality hay. J Anim Sci 83:2938–2945
19. Bobade MD, Anbatkar SV, Khanvilker AV, Pendse MD (1998)
Effect of feeding seaweed extract on production and composition of
milk in crossbred cows. Indian J Anim Prod Manage 14:189–190
20. Lee SH, Lee HG, Maeng W, Baek IK, Hwang JH (2004) Effects
of the brown seaweed residues supplementation on in vitro fer-
mentation, milk production and composition of lactating dairy
cows. J Anim Sci Technol 46:373–386 (in Korean)
21. Reilly P, O’Doherty JV, Pierce KM, Callan JJ, O’Sullivan JT,
Sweeney T (2008) The effects of seaweed extract inclusion on
gut morphology, selected intestinal microbiota, nutrient
digestibility, volatile fatty acid concentrations and the immune
status of the weaned pig. Animal 2:1465–1473
22. Lee HG, Lee HJ, Koh TS, Hong ZS, Li ZH, Xu CX, Jin X, Jin
MG, Choi YJ, Choi NJ (2005) Effect of brown seaweed waste
supplementation on lactational performance and endocrine
physiology in Holstein lactating cows. J Anim Sci Technol
47:573–582 (in Korean)
23. Gardiner GE, Campbell AJ, O’Doherty JV, Pierce E, Lynch PB,
Leonard FC, Stanton C, Ross RP, Lawlor PG (2008) Effect of
Nutritional Evaluation of Seaweed on Nutrient Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance, Milk Production…
Ascophyllum nodosum extract on growth performance,
digestibility, carcass characteristics and selected intestinal
microflora populations of grower-finisher pigs. Anim Feed Sci
Technol 141:259–273
24. Karatzia M, Christaki E, Bonos E, Karatzias C, Florou-Paneri P
(2012) The influence of dietary Ascophyllum nodosum on
haematologic parameters of dairy cows. Ital J Anim Sci 11(2):e31
25. Cermak B, Hnisova J, Petraskova E, Soch M, Vostooupal B
(2011) Influence of chosen stimulants on selected quality ingre-
dients of cow’s milk and rumen parameters. Anim Sci Biotechnol
44:19–23
26. Desai MC, Shukla PC (1975) Effect of feeding seaweed to lac-
tating cows on body weights and milk production. Indian J Anim
Sci 45:823–827
27. Cvetkovic B, Brouk MJ, Shirley JE (2004) Impact of dried sea-
weed meal on heat stressed lactating dairy cattle. In dairy day
View publication stats
(report of progress 941). Kansas State University agricultural
experiment station and cooperative extension service.
http://hdl.handle.net/2097/6732. Accessed 31 Jan 2014
28. Succi G, Zurla F (1967) Effect of adding marine algae to the feed
of cattle on production and composition of milk. Riv Zootec
Agric Vet 5:447
29. Hong ZS, Lee ZH, Xu CX, Yin JL, Jin YC, Lee HJ, Lee SB, Choi
YJ, Lee HG (2010) Effect of fermented brown seaweed waste on
milk production, composition and physiological responses in
Holstein dairy cows. J Anim Sci Technol 52:287–296 (in
Korean)
30. Pompeu LB, Williams JE, Spiers DE, Weaber RL, Ellersieck
MR, Sargent KM, Feyerabend NP, Vellios HL, Evans F (2011)
Effect of Ascophyllum nodosum on alleviation of heat stress in
dairy cows. Prof Anim Sci 27:181–189
123