Study On The Application Of Agricultural Wasted Biomass

Crop residues are one of the key photosynthetic products during the agriculture production. They are pretty rich in many developing countries, especially China. However, the utilization to production ratio is very low, huge of the stalks are directly burnt in the field, especially serious in the main agriculture areas. It is a reasonable way out of crop residues by processing them into forages then feeding animals like cattle. The experiment was carried out with micro-deposited fresh crop residues (MDFR) from common corn residues, micro-deposited fresh forage maize (MDFFM) from forage maize, peanut stems (PS), corn stalk (CS) as the main materials, which helps to grope for a feasibility approach for wise utilization of huge crop residues in the farming ecosystem. The result were as follows:1 The nutrition content of different crop residues and animal feed intake Compared with dry corn straw, crude protein (CP) of MDFR increased by 1.5% with acid detergent fiber (ADF) of MDFR declining by 9.2% due to the application of MDFR technology, However, there were not obvious differences (P>0.05) in the neutral detergent fiber (NDF). The highest CP, NDF and ADF were noted in PS.The biggest percentage of coarse forages in all forages could reach 72%, and the smallest 64% in all treatments, with the highest percentage of maize flours intake being only 16%. The total coarse forages intake (DM) of MDFR + PS, CS + PS,MDFFM and MDFR were 1295.8 kg/cattle, 1250.3 kg/cattle, 990.1kg/cattle , 713.3 kg/cattle(P<0.01) respectively during the 7-month experimental run.2 The cattle growth gainingThe accumulative weight gains from MDFR + PS were higher than the other three treatments, but the difference in cattle gains was not significant among the other three treatments. The accumulative weight gains from MDFR + PS (229.00kg/cattle) enhanced 12% comparing with PS+CS.The difference were not significant on cattle body height, hip bone width, Rump length, cannon circumference, but the difference were significant for their amount of growth (P﹤0.05). For the amount of growth of body height, MDFR+PS gained the highest growth and increased by 18.44cm among all treatments, which enhanced 11% compared with CS+PS; the biggest growth amount of chest width was CS+PS (9.66cm); the total growth amount of MDFR+PS was14.20cm, increased 25% in comparison with CS+PS; the increase value of Rump length was10.30cm on MDFR, which enhanced 28% comparing with CS+PS; the growth of MDFR+PS enhanced 9% comparing with CS+PS on cannon circumference. Body length, chest circumference, chest depth, hucklebone width, together with their amount of growth, did not show obvious on differences among all treatments(P﹥0.05). We could conclude that it had not obvious effects on bones growth, chest circumference development through counting body size index, but maize stalk by treating with MDFR technology feeding cattle could improve beef cattle Rump length development.3 Forages conversion efficienciesThe highest forages conversion efficiency was noted in MDFR, with 6.52 kg forages (2.73 kg concentrates + 3.79 kg coarse forages) being converted into 1 kg live cattle during the 7- month fattening period; the next was MDFR+ PS, needing 8.07kg forages (2.28 kg concentrates + 5.79 kg coarse forages); while the last was CS+ PS, with 8.88 kg forages (2.62 kg concentrates +6.26 kg coarse forages) being converted into 1 kg live cattle. However, the requirements of concentrates represented MDFFM﹤MDFR+PS﹤CS+PS﹤MDFR. An analysis and comprehensive thinking on the requirements of both total forages and concentrates when converting into 1kg live weight of cattle, MDFR+PS gained the excellent conversion efficiency.4 Fiber utilization efficiency of different feed treatments The difference were significant both animal NDF daily intake and NDF daily excretion among all treatments(P﹤0.01). The apparent digestion represented MDFR+PS﹥MDFFM﹥CS+PS﹥MDFR, the highest of which was 63.3% and the last 42.4%.The difference were significant both animal ADF daily intake and ADF daily excretion among all treatments(P﹤0.01). The apparent digestion of ADF showed the similar trend with NDF, the difference value of which was 16.9% between the biggest (MDFR+PS) and the conventional method (CS+PS).5 The ecological benefits and the economic benefits of different treatments The difference were significant on animal daily intake and excretion of nitrogen and carbon (P﹤0.01). The nitrogen and carbon efficiency of returning field presented the biggest for MDFFM with 15.73%, 66.48%, and the smallest for MDFR+PS with 11.03%, 50.99% respectively. The phosphorus efficiency of returning field showed that MDFFM (86.14%) was the biggest, and MDFR (67.11%) was the smallest among all treatments. For the Potassium efficiency of returning field, the biggest was MDFFM (80.27%), the last MDFR (59.59%).The net benefits followed the pattern that MDFR+PS﹥CS+PS﹥MDFR﹥MDFFM. Although MDFR+ PS had the highest cost for feeding,it also yielded the highest net income (1682.0 yuan/cattle). So the value of output: cost reached to 2.01:1. The traditional feeding method used by farmer, PS + CS, appeared the highest output: cost (2.19:1) among all treatments due to lower cost of treating.