Animal Research International (2005) 2(1): 267 – 274 267ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, A REVIEW1 UCHEWA, Emmanuel Nwafoagu, 1 OTUMA, Michael Oria and 2 BROOKS, Peter1 Department of Animal production and Fisheries Management, Ebonyi State University, PMB 053, Abakaliki,Ebonyi State, Nigeria2 Faculty of Food, Land and Leisure, University of Plymouth, Seale Hayne, Newton Abbot. TQ12 6NQ, UnitedKingdomCorresponding Author: UCHEWA, E. N. Department of Animal production and Fisheries Management,Ebonyi State University, PMB 053, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, NigeriaABSTRACTThe issue of pollution and environmental protection now command widespread interes t andpolitical attention. Increased concern over environmental destruction has led to theintroduction of new anti pollution laws and regulations in many countries throughout theworld . Some such regulations focus on curbing pollution caused by industrial and agriculturalactivi ties . Animals produce enormous quantities of waste per day. In areas supportingintensive livestock production, accumulation of such waste can pose a serious environmentalhazard. A single animal pen of a moderate size will produce quantities o f waste equal to thatproduced by a small town annually. Waste produced from these pens usually lead to soil,water and the atmosphere pollutions . Several nutritional advances have been reported whichserve to reduce the excretion and pollutive effect o f animal waste.Keywords: Environmental pollution, Animal, Nutrition, Animal wasteINTRODUCTIONIntensive animal production systems are inefficientfeed converters into. This is particularly true fornitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)ratio in animal diet compare to the dietary intake.A large fraction of these elements in feed are notdeposited in animal tissue, but wasted as amixture of urine and faecal matter (Tamminga andVerstegen, 1992). Losses in animal excreta occurin form of solid, liquid and gases.High animal stocking density often, resultsin high waste production per unit area, thus animalmanure is becoming a burden on the environment(AFRC, 1991). This is particularly the case in areaswhere intensive systems are employed for animalhusbandry such as in The Netherlands andHolland. Public pressure aimed at reducingenvironmental pollution, including that caused bythe animal industry, is a growing concern. In orderto avoid a forced, significant reduction in the sizeof the animal industry, measures will have to betaken to reduce its negative impact on theenvironment (Tamminga and Verstegen, 1992). Anumber of biological approaches may be pursuedwhich can help reduce environmental pollutionarising from animal waste.Dietary manipulation designed to increasefeed digestibility reduces the quantity of faecalmatters produced by the animals. Theincorporation of specific enzymes in diets has alsosolved some specific nutritional problems.Enzymes rich feed often reduces the level ofpollutants excreted in the faecal matter (Bateman,1998).MAJOR POLLUTANTSTo sustain their growth, plants must assimilate avariety of nutrient, most notably nitrogen andphosphorus. These nutrients are invariably presentin animal manure (Headon and Walsh, 1994).Manure thus serves as an effective fertiliser.However, if manure is applied to the soil at a rate,which exceeds plant assimilation, a build up ofnutrients can occur (Tamminga et al., 1992). Suchnutrients, which include nitrogen, phosphorus andminerals, can cause serious pollution.Phosphorus: Low efficiency in the utilization ofdietary phosphorus is seen in pigs and othermonogastric animals. This is reflected by the largequantity of phosphorus normally associated withanimal waste (Cromwell, 1980). Dietarysupplementation of phytase enzyme can effect theconcentration of phosphorus in poultry andlivestock wastes through its ability to liberatephytate phosphorus contained in the cell walls offeed grains (Edens et al., 1999). However thisliberation of phytate phosphorus can only beaccomplished if a concomitant reduction is made insupplemented dietary in<strong>org</strong>anic phosphorus andcalcium. Phytate forms acid salts with mineralcations such as calcium, magnesium, copper, Zinc,
UCHEWA, Emmanuel Nwafoagu et al. 268iron and potassium thereby reducing mineralsolubility and availability (Erdman, 1979). Whenacted upon by phytase enzyme, these cations arereleased much like phosphorus. Consequently,increased availability of these minerals will result inincreased retention of phosphorus in chicken givenphytase. In contrast with nitrogen, phosphorusgenerally remains in association with the surfacelayer of soil. This limits the extent to whichphosphorus pollutes the ground water (MAFF,1996). Soil erosion or manure run-off from the soilsurface, however, can result in appreciablequantities of phosphorus entering the waterways.The presence of excess nutrients in suchwaterways invariably leads to pollution.Nitrogen: Excess nitrogen present in manure is inin<strong>org</strong>anic form (often as ammonium ion NH + 4 ).Some may be lost to the atmosphere as ammonia(NH 3 ) (MAFF, 1996). Because of its positivecharge, NH +4 tends to associate electrostaticallywith the soil particles. This renders much of theapplied nitrogen initially immobile in the soil.However, some of the NH +4 in the soil, whichremains unassimilated by plants, is subsequentlyconverted to nitrate in the soil. Although aproportion is converted to nitrogen gas (N 2 ) by theprocess of denitrification, much of the nitrate willfind its way into ground water supplies (Headonand Walsh, 1994).Although quantitatively, nitrogen andphosphorus represent the major pollutants presentin animal wastes, several other waste constituentscan have adverse environmental effects.Increasing concern has been voiced by many withregard to the quantities of minerals derived fromanimal faeces released in the environment (AFRC,1991).NUTRITIONAL APPROACHES TO REDUCEPOLLUTION FROM ANIMAL WASTESA number of nutritional approaches may bepursued which can help reduce the pollutive effectof animal waste (Vandergrift, 1992). In thisregards, in piggery attention has been focused onreduction of nitrogen and phosphorus in the faecalmatters, while maintaining health and highperformance of the pigs. Nutritional managementcan substantially reduce the quantity of nitrogenand phosphorus excreted by pigs (VanKlooster etal., 1998).Dietary manipulation designed to increasefeed digestibility reduces the qualities of manureproduced by an animal (MAFF, 1991). Inclusion ofprobiotics in the diet may also assist the animal toutilise dietary nutrients more efficiently(Goransson, 1997). The presence of pathogens orpotential pathogens (coliform) in the gut canrender digestion and absorption of nutrients lesseffective. This in turn results in excessive excretionof such nutrients in the faeces (Van’t Klooster etal., 1998).The addition of specific enzymes to dietsmay also solve specific nutritional problems. Feedenzymes can reduce the levels of nitrogen andphosphorus excreted in the faeces. Phytaserenders phosphorus in the form of phytic acid,which is biologically available to the animal(Cromwell, 1980). Cellulases and protease may beused to enhance digestion of fibrous andproteinacious dietary components (Tamminga andVerstegen, 1992). Glucanases and pentosanasesmay be employed to destroy anti-nutritivemolecules such asglucans and pentosans (Headonand Walsh, 1994). Anti-nutritional factors generallyhave an adverse effect on digestion and onassimilation. Their removal, therefore, exerts apositive effect on these physiological processes.Ammonia is one of the most noxiouspollutants associated with animal waste(Tamminga and Verstegen, 1992). Build up ofammonia concentrations in animal pen has adetrimental effect on both animals and animalkeepers alike. Excess of ammonia into theatmosphere has an obvious pollutive effect (Hornand Squire, 1997). Beal et al. (2001) has shownthat pre-treatment of pigs diet with proteaseincreased the in vitro digestion of nitrogen inweaner pigs. There are four reasons why enzymesmay be added in certain diets:1. To remove or destroy anti-nutritional factors2. To enhance overall feed digestibility3. To render certain nutrients biologically available4. To reduce the pollutive effect of animal excretesReducing Phosphorus Excretion throughNutrition: Inclusion of microbial phytase in pigdiets is one of the initial successes in the utilizationof enzyme to solve specific nutritional problem.Phytase currently represents the most excitingpotential application of enzyme in the animal feedindustry (Nasi, 1990). Two thirds of thephosphorus in cereal grain is in form of phyticacid, (phytate). This form of phosphorus isbiologically unavailable to monogastric animals, asthey do not produce digestive enzyme (phytase)capable of releasing the phosphate groups fromphytate (Bateman, 1998).Jongbloed et al. (2000) stated that since1990 various experiments with exogenousmicrobial phytase have been reported to quantifytheir effect on the apparent digestibility/availabilityof phosphorus. One of the first and mostinteresting experiments was the dose-responseeffect of microbial phytase (Natusphos ® ) on theapparent digestibility of phosphorus in growingpigs from 20 to 55 Kg (Beers and Jongbloed,1992). Six doses of phytase (from 0 to 1800FTU/Kg) were used in two types of grower’s diets
- Page 1 and 2:
Animal ResearchInternational ®Anim
- Page 4 and 5:
Influence of dietary protein conten
- Page 7 and 8: MGBENKA, Bernard Obialo et al. 216T
- Page 9 and 10: MGBENKA, Bernard Obialo et al. 218(
- Page 11 and 12: EKWUNIFE, Chinyelu Angela 220repeat
- Page 13 and 14: EKWUNIFE, Chinyelu Angela 222Table
- Page 15 and 16: Animal Research International (2005
- Page 17 and 18: ORJI, Raphael Christopher Agamadoda
- Page 19 and 20: OGUGUA Victor Nwadiogbu and IKEJIAK
- Page 21 and 22: OGUGUA Victor Nwadiogbu and IKEJIAK
- Page 23 and 24: OLUAH, Ndubuisi Stanley et al. 232G
- Page 25 and 26: OLUAH, Ndubuisi Stanley et al. 234C
- Page 27 and 28: ATAMA, Chinedu and MGBENKA, Bernard
- Page 29 and 30: ATAMA, Chinedu and MGBENKA, Bernard
- Page 31 and 32: Animal Research International (2005
- Page 33 and 34: EZEAGU, Ikechukwu Edwin 242Table 1:
- Page 35 and 36: EZEAGU, Ikechukwu Edwin 244Table 5:
- Page 37 and 38: Animal Research International (2005
- Page 39 and 40: 248Table 1: Percentage (%) mean cru
- Page 41 and 42: 250breakdown proteins into peptones
- Page 43 and 44: Animal Research International (2005
- Page 45 and 46: OKAFOR, Anthony Ikechukwu and CHUKW
- Page 47 and 48: OKAFOR, Fabian Chukwuemenam and OMU
- Page 49 and 50: OKAFOR, Fabian Chukwuemenam and OMU
- Page 51 and 52: OKAFOR, Fabian Chukwuemenam and OMU
- Page 53 and 54: OTITOJU Olawale and ONWURAH Ikechuk
- Page 55 and 56: OTITOJU Olawale and ONWURAH Ikechuk
- Page 57: OTITOJU Olawale and ONWURAH Ikechuk
- Page 61 and 62: UCHEWA, Emmanuel Nwafoagu et al. 27
- Page 63 and 64: UCHEWA, Emmanuel Nwafoagu et al. 27
- Page 65 and 66: UCHEWA, Emmanuel Nwafoagu et al. 27
- Page 67 and 68: EYO, Joseph Effiong 276Karyotype ev
- Page 69 and 70: EYO, Joseph Effiong 278MATERIALS AN
- Page 71 and 72: EYO, Joseph Effiong 280Based on the
- Page 73 and 74: EYO, Joseph Effiong 28210Figure 7:
- Page 75 and 76: EYO, Joseph Effiong 284Relative chr
- Page 77 and 78: EYO, Joseph Effiong 286Cyprinidae,