Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

Review

Feed blocks as alternative supplements for sheep and goats

H. Ben Salem , A. Nefzaoui
Laboratoire des Productions Animales et Fourragres, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie, Rue Hdi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisia

Abstract This paper discusses the potential use of feed blocks as alternative supplements for stall-fed and grazing small ruminants raised under harsh environments. A background on manufacturing process of these blocks and the impact of their use in livestock feeding are reported. Trends converge to indicate that hard blocks, a mixture of agro-industrial by-products, urea, binder and preserver, improve digestion of low quality forages thereby increase body weight. Therefore, feed blocks may be considered as an alternative to promote intensive use of numerous agro-industrial by-products and to overcome nutritional constraints. A positive effect of block enriched or not with microelements and vitamins on reproductive performance of ewes was demonstrated. Another potential role of feed blocks is their use as efcient carrier of tannin-neutralising reagents (e.g. polyethylene glycol) to valorise tanniniferous shrubs and trees. Worth noting that these blocks may be used also to vehicle some anthelmintic medicines for small ruminants to control gastrointestinal nematodes. Feed blocks may reduce the use of concentrate feeds, thus reduce feeding cost and increase farmers income. In addition to their nutritional and economical benet, the success of feed block technology depends on its adoption by smallholders. Therefore, the active participation of farmers in the evaluation and transfer of feed block technology targeting their specic conditions is highly recommended. 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Feed blocks; Alternative supplement; Sheep; Goat; Performance

1. Introduction Worlds sheep and goat ocks are raised mostly under harsh environments where feed shortage is the main constraint to their production development. The available feed resources are often low in energy and digestible proteins, and fail in most cases to cover livestock maintenance requirements. They can be better used by the animal if the rumen ecosystem for fermentative digestion can be balanced by supplying decient nutrients mainly energy and nitrogen (Leng, 1990). In
Corresponding author. Tel.: +216-71-230-024; fax: +216-71-752-897. E-mail address: bensalem.hichem@iresa.agrinet.tn (H. Ben Salem).

drought conditions, farmers are obliged to use high amounts of concentrate feeds to mach nutrient demands of stall-fed and free grazing animals. The high cost as associated to limited and seasonal availability of these supplements hamper, priori, their wide scale use, especially by small farmers. Feed blocks seem to be an attractive alternative to overcome this situation. This paper addresses a review on the potential use of feed blocks in sheep and goat feeding.

2. Feed resources for sheep and goats Since long time, small ruminants predominate in the farming systems of the arid and semi-arid regions

0921-4488/03/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00144-5

276

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

where the meagre natural vegetation of rangelands and crop residues are the main feed resources. Rangeland contribution in the feeding calendar of ruminant livestock is in continuous decrease for several reasons. Changes of agriculture policies at the benet of cereal, olive, crops and fruit tree cropping had resulted in a decrease of rangeland areas. The continuous and rapid increase of human population and the associated rise in the demand for animal products over the three last decades have brought the regions rangelands under increasing pressure. The absence of sustainable management strategies of rangelands is likely responsible for this situation (Nefzaoui and Ben Salem, 1999). Crop residues, particularly cereal straws and few agro-industrial by-products such as molasses, olive cake, cotton seed and tomato pulp, have gained in importance due to the increasing demand of livestock feeds and to competitive prices resulting from removal of feed subsidies. However, the nutritive value of these feed resources is often so low that farmers are obliged to supplement them with feed grains and other concentrate feeds (e.g. wheat or rice bran, soya bean, cotton seed, rapeseed meals, etc.). In harsh conditions, prevailing mainly in Africa and West Asia, amounts of concentrate feeds needed to maintain animals fed on low quality diets are so high

that the stock of locally produced feed grains cannot satisfy animal requirements. Efforts are continuously made by governments to tackle this problem through repeated imports of some feed grains and other concentrate feeds (barley, maize, soya bean meal, etc.). Obviously, an important budget is allocated each year, particularly in drought years, to import these feed supplements. Although prices of imported concentrate feeds are subsidised in several countries, farmers are still considering them as expensive supplements, thus they cannot offer them regularly to small ruminants. It is essential that local resources be used for livestock particularly if a system is to remain sustainable. The need to make better use of local feeds (crop residues, agro-industrial by-products, etc.) is considered as a promising way to alleviate feed decit. Therefore, this objective has promoted considerable research throughout the world and many promising technologies have been developed (e.g. ammonia treatment of straws, etc.) and their positive impact on ruminant production have been demonstrated in numerous studies. But for several reasons and in most cases these technologies have not been adopted by end-users, especially those having limited nances and poorly skilled. Huge amounts of agro-industrial by-products are produced in numerous countries but

Table 1 Ratio of by-product to product (BP/P), dry matter (DM, g/kg), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), crude bre (CF), calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) contents (g/kg DM), metabolisable energy (ME, Mcal/kg MS) and CP digestibility (dCP, %) of some agro-industrial by-products BP/P Orange pulp Cotton seed Citrus pulp Brewer grains Grape marc Molasses Olive cake Olive cake (SE)d Sesame residue Sugar beet pulp Tomato pulp Date palm Wheat bran Wheat feeds
a b

DM 880 930 155b 913b 422b 761c 876b 834b 920c 889c 270c 876 877c 864c

OM 962 961 938b 949b 949b 877c 940b 917b 888c 912c 959c 975 946c 962c

CP 85 249 67b 260b 109b 56c 66b 82b 457c 98c 189c 32 167c 160c

CF 100 180 148b 169b 325b 0c 412b 407b 63c 206c 423c 118c 66c

Ca 7.1 1.5 12.6b 4.6b 4.7b 7.5c 5.6b 7.9b 21.1c 13.0c 4.0c 1.7c 1.2c

P 1.1 7.3 1.1b 1.9b 2.4b 0.5c 0.9b 0.9b 12.9c 1.0c 5.5c 10.4c 7.4c

ME 10.6 3.11b 2.66b 1.08b 2.46c 1.23b 3.28c 2.73c 1.85c 2.43c 3.19c

dCP 611b 705b 0b 25c 0b 90c 54c 75c 72c 82c

0.40:0.60a 0.06:0.94a 0.37:0.63a 0.29:0.71a 1:2 0.25:0.75a 0.07:0.93a

Hadjipanayiotou (1992). Alibes and Tisserand (1990). c INRA (1988). d SE solvent extracted.

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

277

most of which are not fully used in animal feeding and contribute to the environment pollution. Difculty in using most of these by-products as fresh material for long time is one of the constraints for their wider use. Moreover, the low nutritive value and the imbalanced nutrient prole of these by-products is another reason, which limits their use as component of small ruminant diets (Table 1). A typical case, which joins these two problems is olive cake, abundant in the Mediterranean area (Greece, Italy, Spain and Tunisia) but due to its low nutritive value (i.e. low in energy, digestible proteins and minerals and high in lignin) and the rapid development of mould, this by-product is seldom integrated into livestock feeding (Nefzaoui, 1999). 3. Feed block technology 3.1. Denition and history Feed blocks named also multinutrient blocks are a solidied mixture of agro-industrial by-products, urea (non-protein N source), binder (e.g. cement and lime) and salt (preserver). Since they provide rumen microora and host animal continuously and simultaneously with minerals, vitamins, energy and protein or non-protein nitrogen, feed blocks are considered as alternative supplements which stimulate microbial activity in the rumen, thus improve digestion of low quality roughages by stall-fed or free grazing ruminants. It is often reported (Sancoucy, 1995) that feed block utilisation in livestock feeding was initiated since the early 1980s. However, this technology seems to be much older than it was proposed. Referring to an ancient review paper (Cordier, 1947), it appears that feed blocks manufactured using cold process have been used in Tunisia in the 1930s but overlooked ever since until the 1990s. Sancoucy (1995) claimed that following the adoption of a new and simple technology based on a cold process that needs no or little equipment, the feed block technology is being used in more than 60 countries. 3.2. Advantages of feed block use Expected benets from the adoption of feed block technology may be summarised as follows:

Simple and efcient technique for long term conservation of high-moisture agro-industrial by-products (e.g. olive cake, tomato pulp, citrus pulp, date pulp, etc.). Ease of transport and of feeding stall-fed and free grazing animals. Reduced use of conventional concentrate feeds, thereby feeding cost would be alleviated. Allows a synchronous and fractionated supply of essential nutrients for ruminants fed on low quality roughages. May be used as carrier of several chemicals and anthelmintic medicines. Environment pollution may be reduced. 3.3. Formulation Formulation of feed blocks should consider several aspects. Local and cheap ingredients should be used. The composition of feed blocks depends upon the production objectives (animal survival, maintenance or production). Selected ingredients should be well-distributed throughout the block. Feed block should include a binder, a preserver and combination of other ingredients, which will provide the nutrients (energy, nitrogen, minerals and vitamins). The nutritive value of the agro-industrial by-products reported in Table 1 would suggest a possible complementary role of these feed sources, therefore their better use in livestock feeding may be achieved. Some of them may be considered as protein sources (e.g. cotton seed, brewer grains, sesame residue and tomato pulp), others provide energy (e.g. orange pulp, molasses and wheat feeds) while some others are sources of bre (e.g. olive cake, grape marc, etc.). A supply of several additives may balance these feed resources for minerals and vitamins. Therefore, appropriate mixture of these by-products would provide cost-effective feed which is balanced for nutrients required by rumen microora for optimised digestion of low quality feedstuffs and by host animal for improved production of meat and milk. Prior knowledge of the nutritive value of each agro-industrial by-product would be necessary to obtain feed block with acceptable feeding value. Evidently, some other factors should be considered while developing block formula. These include mainly local and seasonal availability and ingredient cost.

278

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

Different binders have been used to make hard blocks. In the 1930s, linseed powder was used, while in the current decade cement and lime are the most common. Hadjipanayiotou et al. (1993a) showed that slaked lime was slightly better compared to cement as binders. Some other binders have proved to be efcient, particularly ordinary clay (Sancoucy, 1995), gypsum (Hadjipanayiotou et al., 1993a) and bentonite (Sudana and Leng, 1986). Nowadays, urea is used systematically in feed block formulation, mainly as a source of non-protein nitrogen. The rate of this ingredient in feed blocks ranged from 5 to 15% (Tables 2 and 3). Until few years ago, only molasses-containing feed blocks have been developed and investigated. This ingredient is the major by-product of the sugarcane and sugar beet industry, which is developed in many tropical and temperate countries. Molasses is high in energy as concentrated form of fermentable carbohydrates and provides a range of trace minerals and a complete mixture of vitamins. In addition to the nutritional role, this by-product is considered as a binder, which render the block sticky, and increases its palatability. In many countries where molasses is not produced, free-molasses feed blocks have been developed (Table 3). Salt is used as preserver but also to avoid excessive consumption of blocks thereby to discard any risk of urea toxicity. Examination of formulas reported in Tables 2 and 3 reveals a wide variation of ingredient proportions. Mineral and vitamin sources ranged between 1 and 10%, while binder proportions varied from 1 to 15%. Salt and urea were present in most formula. Ingredients expected to provide main nutrients, i.e. energy and nitrogen, represent the major part in the feed block varying from 50 to 90%. It seems that this technology provides a certain exibility to block makers to adjust the proportion of each ingredient according to its availability, physical role in the block (e.g. wheat bran to absorb humidity in the block), nutritive value and probably to overcome animal requirements for specic nutrients, e.g. copper and zinc to improve reproductive performance in ewes. 3.4. Manufacturing procedure To be widely used by farmers, feed blocks should involve cheap ingredients and simple manufactur-

ing equipment. Depending upon the rate of production foreseen different types of mixers and pressing tools could be used. If few blocks are requested hand mixing may be emphasised and concrete mixer should be used when large amounts of blocks should be made. The sequence of ingredient mixing depends on their nature. For molassesurea feed blocks, molasses should be provided rst, then successively urea, salt, minerals, cement or quicklime and bran. For free-molasses blocks, Ben Salem et al. (2000b) recommended to dissolve in water separately the binder (i.e. quicklime), urea and salt. In order to prevent any toxicity risk, lumps of urea and lime should be avoided. The three obtained solutions should be mixed then added progressively to the mixture of the other ingredients (e.g. olive cake, rapeseed meal and wheat bran). A simple technique was suggested to test whether the mixture is ready for moulding (Ben Salem et al., 2000b; A. Salman, personal communication). A small amount of the mixture should be taken from time to time and pressed in the ngers. If the compressed mixture maintains its compacted form and a very small amount of liquid leaks between ngers, moulding process may be started. Various shapes of feed blocks (e.g. cylindrical, cubic, etc.) have been developed depending upon mould type. Buckets, wooden boxes or PVC tube (e.g. diameter: 18 cm, height: 20 cm) are the most used moulds. Once the ingredient mixture is set in the mould, it should be pressed by hand press then the frame should be removed to allow block drying. After demoulding, feed blocks should be stored in a ventilated place and preferably not directly exposed to sunlight. Various drying durations of feed blocks have been proposed in the literature, but it seems that the duration varies with feed block composition and the degree of hardness. Blocks must be turned from time to time to accelerate drying process, i.e. 1 week in summer and more than 2 weeks in winter. Well-made blocks should be hard and resistant. Blocks should be too hard to squash between ngers and resistant enough not to break when a person steps on them. The degree of hardness and compactness have been proposed for the assessment of feed blocks (Hassoun, 1989; Hadjipanayiotou et al., 1993a). Hardness is assessed by pressing with the thumb in the middle of the block. A block is considered soft (S), medium (M), or good (G) when the thumb penetrates easily, very little or only with

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288 Table 2 Formulas and chemical composition of molasses-containing feed blocks Item Formulas (F) numbera 1 Ingredients Molasses Cottonseed meal Flour, bakery Fat Fish solubles Rice polishing Corn Rice pollard Wheat bran Meat meal Wheat feeds Olive cake Old Fresh Poultry litter Poultry manure Animal lard Urea Cement Cement kiln dust Quicklime Lime Bentonite sodium Limestone Salt (NaCl) Commercial minerals Mineral and vitamin supplement Trace mineral Premix Sulphur Ammonium sulphate Rock phosphate Zinc sulphate Copper sulphate MgO CaHPO4 Di-ammonium P PEG 4000 Chemical composition (g/kg DM) Dry matter (g/kg) Ash Crude protein Crude bre Neutral-detergent bre (NDF) Acid-detergent bre (ADF)
a

279

2 35.2 25.8 3.4 16.8 4.5 11 0.83 1.0 0.23 842 267 222 106

3 35.2 25.8 3.4 17.8 3.5 11 0.83 1.0 0.23 842 306 215 49

4 45 23 15 9 6 4.5 1 6 3

5 20 24 21 10 8 7 10

6 9.5 36.4 13.9 11.4 11.6 5.8 5.7 1 295 381 261

7 9.3 30.3 10.1 11.1 11.2 5.6 5.5 1 11.2 280 369 210

8 10 26 13 40 6.5 9 4.5 1 720 370 320 140

9 1418 1318 1013 1112 910 1015 810 1.5 34 34 1.3 0.30.5 996 92 81 358 688 457

10 42 25 10 15 5 3 246 400

(%)b

67 14 6 2.4 2 6.1 1 1.3 0.2 0.04 902 139 303

1: Depeters et al. (1985), 2 and 3: Houmani and Tisserand (1999), 4: Sudana and Leng (1986), 5: Hadjipanayiotou et al. (1993b), 6 and 7: Moujahed et al. (2000), 8: Nyarko-Badohu et al. (1994), 9: Galina et al. (2000), 10: Anindo et al. (1998). b Ingredients are expressed on crude weight (formula number is given in italic) or on dry matter basis.

280

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

Table 3 Formulas and chemical composition of molasses-free feed blocks Item Formulas (F) numbera 11 Ingredients Wheat bran Rice bran Wheat feeds Cereal waste Cotton seed meal Olive cake Date syrup Date syrup by-product Date fronds groundc Date pulp Prickly pear fruit Poultry litter Urea Cement Bentonite clay Quicklime Salt (NaCl) MVSd Premix CaSO4 PEG 4000 (%)b 32 22 20 7 12 5 12 28 11 38 5 12 5 1 691 249 214 206 133 13 26.3 13.2 39.5 6.6 8.8 4.4 1.2 866 309 235 219 187 14 25 12.5 37.6 8.3 4.2 1 857 291 101 212 184 15 23.5 11.8 35.3 5.9 7.8 3.9 1 863 284 235 218 182 16 30 19 8 7 15 5 10 5 1 940 285 192 127 17 35 40 10 10 5 749 372 252 111 18 24.3 36.7 9 7.3 15.4 7.3 860 357 225 323 225 19 21.8 33.1 8 6.6 13.9 6.6 10 830 421 193 199 187 20 35 35 10 10 7 7 876 207 250 90 21 32 10 7 25 5 3 12 5 1 3.08 48.11 22 32 10 7 10 15 5 3 12 5 1 45.8 91.05 23 28 11 38 5 12 5 1 815 286 211 202

Chemical composition (g/kg DM) DM (g/kg) 890 Ash 302 Crude protein 318 Crude bre 446 NDF ADF Cu (mg/kg) Zn (mg/kg)

a 11: Salman et al. (1997), 12: Ben Salem et al. (2000a), 1315: Ben Salem et al. (2002), 16: Al-Haboby et al. (1999), 17: Chermiti (1998), 18 and 19: Ben Salem et al. (in press), 20: El Hag et al. (2002), 21 and 22: Anonyme (2001), 23: Ben Salem et al. (in press). b Ingredients are expressed on crude weight (formula number is given in italic) or on dry matter basis. c Date leaves and rachis. d Mineral and vitamin supplement.

great pressure, respectively. In addition to Hassouns (1989) scale, Hadjipanayiotou et al. (1993a) used a penetrometer to measure block hardness. Compactness is important to avoid wastes during transport of feed blocks and to control intake. This criteria depends mainly on the type of ingredients and pressing intensity during moulding procedure. Blocks with low compactness, i.e. easy to squash between ngers, may crumble rapidly with handling thereby all their advantages as cost-effective supplements would be cancelled.

3.5. Feed block use Urea-containing feed blocks should not be given to monogastric species or to pre-ruminant calves, young kid goats and lambs (less than 3-month-old) as these animals cannot use efciently ammonia generated from urea, therefore their intoxication would occur. Feed blocks should be used as supplement for low quality feedstuffs but should never be given as sole diet for ruminant animals. The purpose of these supplements is to enhance microbial activity in the

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

281

rumen thereby to improve digestion of low quality roughages. Moreover, several authors (e.g. Chenost and Kayouli, 1997) recommended to give feed blocks in dry seasons to ruminants on poor quality brous feeds (e.g. straws, low quality hays, stubble, etc.). This suggests that the use of feed blocks in wet season may not advantage digestion by ruminants as green forages during this period are relatively high in nitrogen and low in bre. Precautions should be taken to introduce the blocks gradually in the diet of ruminants during a transition period of about 2 weeks to enable the animals to adapt to this new supplement. This is particularly important when animals have suffered a degree of underfeeding as intake can be more rapid than usual. Moreover, when the blocks are not sufciently hard, toxicity may occur in animals not adapted to urea. Bentonite, which was used in few studies as binder (Sudana and Leng, 1986; Anonyme, 2001) could be also a way to decrease the rate of breakdown of urea into ammonia in the rumen. This effect improves nitrogen utilisation and reduces the risk of urea toxicity. Worth noting that hard blocks should never broken into small pieces or sprinkled with water before distribution to animals otherwise large amount of blocks thus excessive amount of urea may be consumed by the animal. The recommended way to restrict intake during the adaptation period is to control the time of feeding. Blocks may be offered for 1 h per day enabling the small ruminants to consume about 30 g during the rst 34 days, followed by 3 h per day to allow double consumption of blocks (60 g) during the next 46 days. Thereafter, animals may have free access to blocks over the day. 4. Integration of feed blocks in livestock feeding 4.1. Nutritive value of feed blocks As mentioned elsewhere in this paper, feed block formulation depends especially on farmers objective, animal species and their physiological state for which these supplements will be given. Therefore, numerous formula of feed blocks could be developed. Ingredient nature and proportion in feed blocks are the main factors inuencing nutrient content of these supplements and their intake and digestion by rumi-

nant animals would depend also on their degree of hardness. Dry matter content of blocks reported in Tables 2 and 3 were relatively high, in most cases in the range of 800900 g/kg. This variation may result mainly from the type and level of binder used, drying mode (i.e. shade vs. sun drying), season (e.g. summer vs. winter seasons) and duration. Urea had been included in block formula as source of non-protein nitrogen and also as preserver. Crude protein content of feed blocks were high, varying from ca. 20 to 40% on dry matter basis, great part of which is in soluble form mainly as non-protein N from urea (Tables 2 and 3). In absence of good hardness and excessive consumption of urea-containing blocks, poisoning of sheep and goats may occur. Moreover, in absence of adequate level of energy in the block or in the diet given to animals, the high level of urea in the block would be transformed to excessive concentrations of ammonia in the rumen, which may be voided in urine and faeces. Non-organic compounds are introduced in feed blocks as binder (e.g. lime and cement), preserver (salt) and mineral-supplements. Their proportions are generally higher than 20%. Consequently, ash content of feed blocks is often high, reaching in some formula 30%. Energy-rich products should be included in feed block formula. Molasses, high in soluble carbohydrates, fulls this condition. Some other by-products may replace molasses in the formula of blocks. Chermiti (1998) studied the replacement value of prickly pear fruit for molasses as energy-source in feed blocks. Both types of feed blocks had similar palatability and dry matter intakes by sheep and heifers. Recently, Ben Salem et al. (in press) included wasted cactus fruit in olive cake-based blocks and noted that the amount of this block consumed by goats although low (less than 150 g DM per head per day) was sufcient to increase the nutritive value of kermes oak foliage-based diet. Date palm by-products have been used also with success as an energy-rich ingredient in blocks (formula 20, Table 3) given to sheep and goats on grass hay (El Hag et al., 2002). Feed blocks to full their role as cost-effective supplement for ruminants on low quality forages should be consumed in small amounts. However, a wide variation of block intakes exceeding the recommended level (250 g per day per head of sheep and goats, Sansoucy, 1986) is reported. Obviously, formulation and manufacturing techniques may account for this

282

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

variation, but also the objective of using these blocks could be another key factor. Molassesurea blocks have been used to enhance microbial activity in the rumen of ruminants on low quality roughages. They are considered by several authors as block licks, therefore their intake is often low. However, recent trends include under the umbrella of feed block a complete solidied supplement aiming at replacing common concentrate feeds. This technology is considered in numerous countries as an efcient way to conserve high-moisture agro-industrial by-products (e.g. olive cake, tomato pulp, citrus pulp, etc.) and to reduce the use of concentrate feeds. This evolution is obviously boosted by recent policies for livestock sector where partial or total removal of feed subsidies is applied in several countries of southern Mediterranean basin. Thus, many agro-industrial by-products that used to be neglected are now better valorised. Feed blocks have no substitution effect even when consumed at amounts higher than 250 g DM per day. In contrast to concentrate, hard blocks are consumed in small amounts over the day, thus do not compete with the basal diet. In any case, to limit block consumption, the presence of high level of salt in addition to its role as preserver, forces the animal to consume small amounts over the day. Hardness is another factor to restrict feed block intake by ruminants. In most papers dealing with block use, the nutritive value of these supplements was restricted to the determination of classic components (i.e. ash, crude protein, crude protein and bre as crude bre or cell wall). However, soluble carbohydrates (e.g. sugar, starch, etc.) and nitrogen (soluble nitrogen, true proteins, digestible proteins, amino acids, etc.) proles, although important in livestock feeding were not investigated. The energy content of blocks was seldom determined or estimated in the literature. One would be curious to know if the content of several nutrients mainly nitrogen would vary or not with the storage duration of blocks. Moreover, how much the amount of urea included in blocks would be transformed to ammonia? Also, what would be the fate of minerals in several binders (e.g. calcium in lime, oligo-elements in cement) included in blocks, and do they interfere with the whole balance of minerals in the diet? Vitamins have been included in some formulas of feed blocks, but there is no argument that they would be available in the block for long time. It is worth to draw specic

attention to these questions for better understanding of the role of feed blocks in livestock feeding, thus to guarantee their efcient use. 4.2. Effect of feed block use on intake, digestion and growth So far only few feeding experiments have been carried out to evaluate the effect of feed blocks on the nutritive value of the diet and small ruminant performance. The available data (Table 4), reiterate the importance of feed block utilisation with respect to their positive effect on animal performance. Molassed as well as unmolassed feed blocks may replace totally or partially concentrate feeds (barley grain, commercial concentrate, etc.) without any negative effect on the nutritive value of the total diet and sheep and goat body weight. Such effect seems to concern apparent digestibility of block-containing diets and the daily gain of stall-fed and grazing sheep and goats as well. However, the effect of blocks on feed intake by sheep and goats is inconclusive on the basis of available data. Houmani and Tisserand (1999) and Ben Salem et al. (2001) did not observe any improvement of straw intake when concentrate was partially or totally replaced by feed blocks. In contrast, Nyarko-Badohu et al. (1994) reported an increase of straw intake by sheep supplemented with molasses-containing blocks (formula 8, Table 2) instead of concentrate (Table 4). Overall, block supply did not reduce forage intake, suggesting an absence of substitution effect of this alternative supplement (Table 4). The increase of OM and CP digestibility of feed block-containing diets in the majority of studies (Table 4) and the improvement of microbial protein synthesis reported by Ben Salem et al. (2001) suggested that the provision of these supplements stimulated rumen microora growth and activity thereby increased digestion of poor quality roughages. The increase of rumen fermentation following synchronised and fractionated supply of nutrients to micro-organisms was demonstrated by several authors (Sudana and Leng, 1986; Doyle et al., 1988). Repeated consumption of small amounts of hard feed block over the day ensures a synergy between nutrient demands of rumen micro-organisms to degrade low quality feedstuffs and the provision of adequate levels of these nutrients without exceeding the transformation capacity of microbial population.

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

283

Table 4 Effect of feed block supply on dry matter intake (DMI, g/kg W0.75 ), organic matter (OM) and crude protein (CP) in vivo digestibility (g/kg) of diets and growth rate (g per day) by sheep and goats Basal diet Supplement Animal DMI Forage Wheat straw = = Wheat straw WS-NH3 b Wheat straw Barley straw = Barley grains = Grass hay = = = Shrubland = Shrubland = Stubble =
a b

Diet digestibility Supplement 42.2 61.9 64.5 6.9 6.9 12.0 45.3 11.6 + 42.0 46.2 + 0.6 47.4 41.1 + 3.0 41.0 29.1 17.6 OM 506 567 591 645 539 CP 595 540 609 459 532

Growth

Ref.

Concentrate Blocka 2 Block 3 Concentrate Concentrate Block 8 Concentrate C + block 23 None Block 11 C + block 20 Cc C + block 20 Cc None Block 23 Concentrate Block 9 None Block 5

Lambs = = Ewes = = Lambs = Lambs = Goat = Sheep = Kids = Goat = Sheep =

34.5 36.4 37.0 43.0 58.0 60.0 31.3 30.2 13.7 23.4 12.2 20.8 39.0 58.9

96.7 83.0 105.3 23 47 53 63.1 66.0 170 199 46 29 39 26 25 40 76 95 57 115

Houmani and Tisserand (1999)

Ben Salem et al. (in press)

Nyarko-Badohu et al. (1994) Salman et al. (1997) El Hag et al. (2002)

Ben Salem et al. (2000a) Galina et al. (2000) Hadjipanayiotou (1997)

Each block is followed with the number of corresponding formula, which is reported in Tables 2 and 3. Ammonia-treated wheat straw. c Concentrate.

In contrast, concentrate feeds are generally rapidly consumed by sheep and goats and degraded in the rumen, therefore picks of nutrients mainly volatile fatty acids and ammonianitrogen are observed in the rst few hours post-feeding, great part of which is lost in urine and faeces. Consequently, availability of these nutrients for rumen micro-organisms over the rest of the day will be limited and their degrading capacity of brous feeds will be compromised. Digestion in free grazing sheep and goats as affected with feed block supply is still not investigated. The improvement of microbial activity in stall-fed and probably free grazing animals following feed block supply may explain the increase of daily gain of sheep and goats (Table 4). However, the rate of such increase seems to depend upon feed block and diet composition and animal species. Total (Houmani and Tisserand, 1999) or partial (decrease of the amount of concentrate by 75%, H. Ben Salem unpublished) replacement of concentrate with molasses-free or molasses-containing

blocks resulted in similar growth rates as compared to those given the full amount of concentrate. Goats on native shrublands and receiving molasses-free (Ben Salem et al., 2000a) or containing (Galina et al., 2000) feed blocks grew at rates signicantly higher than those receiving concentrate (Table 4). These alternative supplements were also efcient in substantially increasing the daily gain (ca. 100%) of stubble grazing sheep (Hadjipanayiotou, 1997). Conclusively, feed block supply improved digestion of low quality feedstuffs and sheep and goat growth. Worth noting that consumption of salt-containing feed blocks is evidently associated with increased consumption of water. Ben Salem et al. (2001) using blocks made from olive cake (44%), wheat bran (15%), wheat feeds (15%), rapeseed meal (10%), quicklime (8%), salt (5%), urea (2%) and commercial mineral and vitamin supplement (1%) concluded that lambs on straw and supplemented with 125 g concentrate and block consumed more water than

284

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

those supplemented with 500 g concentrate (2.82 vs. 1.63 l per head per day). Although the role of salt in feed block is important, the increase of drinking water given to animals may be a limiting factor in drought conditions. Distribution of cactus pads (high in moisture, ca. 90%) to sheep and goats receiving feed blocks may be a solution to dilute salinity, therefore to increase efciency of these alternative supplements. 4.3. Effect of feed block supply on reproduction performance It is well established that nutrient (i.e. energy, protein, minerals and vitamins) supply greatly affects reproduction performance in ruminants (OCallaghan and Boland, 1999; Smith and Akinbamijo, 2000). Fertility and prolicacy rates, pregnancy, and abortions in animals are tightly related to feeding plan. Summer is a critical season for ewes. While this season coincides in numerous countries with feed shortage, a progressive decline in body weight and production of fewer lambs when exposed to the ram in the fall are expected. Supplementation should be therefore emphasised. Flushing ewes to improve lambing performance is practised even by smallholder farmers and proved efcient in increasing ovulation rate. However, ushing is considered by the majority of small farmers as expensive technique. Feed resources available in summer are high in bre and low in energy, nitrogen and minerals. Therefore, nutrient balance in sheep and goats, particularly ewes, is in most cases negative. Feed block technology have been investigated in few research studies as an alternative way to meet requirements of these animals for main nutrients during critical physiological stages. In USA, Depeters et al. (1985) supplemented yearling and aged ewes grazing dry annual pastures with feed blocks (formula 1, Table 2). They concluded that these alternative supplements reduced body weight loss and did not affect rates of lambing and multiple births for yearling ewes while aged ewes maintained initial body weight and increased lambing rate from 100 to 116.7% and rate of multiple births from 0 to 16.7%. In another study held in Iraq, Al-Haboby et al. (1999) investigated the effect of feed blocks enriched with undegradable protein and mixture of Vitamins A, D3, and E on reproductive performance

of Awassi ewes grazing stubble (formula 16, Table 3). They noted a signicant increase with feed blocks of ewes body score at mating (2.31 vs. 2.72), and a signicant decrease of the proportion of ewes lambed at third cycle (14 vs. 0%) and proportion of barren ewes (19 vs. 4%). Additionally, lambing, twinning and fertility were relatively high in block-receiving ewes although this increase did not reach signicance. In an on-farm trial in Iraq, feed blocks (formulas 21 and 22, Table 3) enriched with microelements (i.e. Cu and Zn) proved efcient in increasing fertility (80 vs. 68 and 52%), lambing (88 vs. 68 and 52%) rates and in decreasing barren rate (20 vs. 32 and 48%) in stubble grazing ewes as compared to ewes supplemented with ordinary blocks (i.e. without microelements) or unsupplemented (Anonyme, 2001). Feed block may affect also reproductive parameters in male sheep. Al-Haboby et al. (1999) investigated the effect of by-pass proteins and vitamin-enriched blocks on semen characteristics and blood parameters of rams. After 3 months of feed block supplementation they noted a signicant decrease of mass activity (78.75 vs. 56.25%), individual motility (87.50 vs. 67.5%), ejaculate concentration (1.84 vs. 0.93 billion per ejaculate) but an increased dead rate (9 vs. 22.25%) and head abnormalities (2.25 vs. 11%) in sperms was caused by block supply. These authors recommended to overlook negative effects of feed blocks on the semen quality of rams. They ascribed this trend to the fact that rams, in contrast to ewes, were stall-fed which might lead to excessive consumption of feed blocks and consequently more urea than the animal needs, therefore a decline of ram traits occurred. Anindo et al. (1998) found a signicant improvement of semen quality in grazing Menz ram lambs supplemented with molasses-containing feed blocks (formula 10, Table 2). Indeed, they showed that 6 months of block supplementation improved body weight, testicular size and sperm cell concentration. Several factors may account for the divergence between Al-Haboby et al.s (1999) and Anindo et al.s (1998) ndings. Block composition, although the rate of urea used by the former authors was half that introduced in blocks (5 vs. 10%) given to Menz rams lambs (Anindo et al., 1998), difference in the basal diet and ram breed and age may partly explain this discrepancy.

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

285

4.4. Use of feed blocks to improve the utilisation of tannin-containing shrubs and trees A major part of diets for small ruminants raised in arid, semi-arid and mountainous areas is derived from shrubby vegetation. Numerous tree and shrub species contain high level of proteins. Protein is a limiting nutrient in the diet of livestock, which because of its limited supply should be used more efciently to promote fermentation of roughage in the rumen for improved animal performance. Tannins are the most widely occurring anti-nutritional factors found in plants. They form soluble and insoluble complexes mainly with proteins. They also have afnity towards carbohydrates, amino acids and minerals, rendering them unavailable for rumen microora and host animal (Makkar, 2003). These phenolic compounds reduce the nutritive value of numerous feedstuffs thereby decrease livestock production and reproductive performance (Waghorn et al., 1999). Their presence at high levels in some forage trees and other feedstuffs could also adversely affect livestock health. However, it is possible to increase the nutritive value of these feed sources with compounds such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), which preferentially binds to tannins, making plant proteins more available for digestion. Based on their characteristics and advantages discussed above, feed blocks could be a cost-effective way to provide PEG for stall-fed or free-browsing sheep and goats on tannin-containing browse foliage. Ben Salem et al. (2000b) were the rst authors who included PEG in feed blocks given to growing sheep on Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage. They concluded that including PEG (molecular weight 4000) in molasses-free blocks (formulas 14 and 15, Table 3) increased substantially dry matter intake of acacia foliage as compared to PEG-free blocks (formula 13, Table 3). Apparent diet digestibility, nitrogen retention, microbial nitrogen supply along with daily gain were also considerably increased in Barbarine lambs given acacia-based diet and supplemented with PEG-containing blocks. The importance of synchronising tannin and PEG consumption have been later conrmed in vitro by Getachew et al. (2001) who showed that the slow release of PEG (i.e. split doses) resulted in highest microbial nitrogen synthesis (MPS) from tannin-rich shrub species incubated in calibrated glass syringes compared to MPS obtained with PEG

administered as single dose. The response to PEG was noticeably higher when administered in feed blocks rather than in concentrate, drinking water or sprayed as solution on acacia foliage although the amount of PEG consumed by sheep was quite similar (2023 g per day) among the serial of experiments carried out by Ben Salem et al. (1999, 2000b, 2002). Moujahed et al. (2000) showed that molassed blocks (formula 6, Table 2) given to adult sheep increased the nutritive value of acacia-based diets and improved rumen fermentation. A further increase of block supply was noted when PEG was included in the formula of these blocks (formula 7, Table 2). Of particular interest in the latter study was the increase of ammonianitrogen and volatile fatty acid concentrations in the rumen uid but mainly the signicant increase of the potential degradability of acacia crude protein noted in sheep receiving PEG-containing blocks. Results reported by Ben Salem et al. (2002) suggested that there is no need to include urea in PEG-containing feed blocks. Indeed, sheep given PEG-containing blocks with or without urea led to a similar rate of increase of the nutritive value of acacia-based diets as compared to PEG-free blocks. The presence of PEG in feed blocks may be of no value if the level of energy in the diet is low, i.e. the amount of protein released from tanninprotein complexes may not be valorised by rumen microora and host animal when a concomitant increase of the energy level in the diet does not occur. Olive cake-based blocks free of molasses (formula 18, Table 3) increased considerably dry matter intake of kermes oak, a shrub species high in tannins, diet digestibility and nitrogen balance in goats (Table 5). Administering PEG in these blocks (formula 19, Table 3), resulted in no further signicant increase in the nutritive value of kermes oak-based diets. Enrichment of blocks with energy-source is expected to optimise PEG effect (Ben Salem et al., in press). To the question do feed blocks enriched or not with PEG affect meat quality, Priolo et al. (2002) concluded that meat from Barbarine lambs on acacia and receiving supplementation of concentrate had lower resistance to the WarnerBratzler shear device and hence taste panel found meat more tender than that from lambs supplemented with olive cake-based blocks. However, meat chemical composition was similar among concentrate and block-receiving lambs. To our knowledge no other study on the effect of feed

286

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

Table 5 Effect of administering PEG in feed blocks on dry matter intake (DMI, g/kg W0.75 ), apparent digestibility (g/kg) of organic matter (OM) and crude protein (CP), nitrogen retention (Nr, g per day), microbial nitrogen supply (MPS, g/kg digestible OM intake) and growth rate (g per day) in growing sheep given Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage ad libitum and in goats on kermes oak (Quercus coccifera) Basal diet (Ref.) Supplementa DMI Acacia Acacia (Ben Salem et al., 2000b) Acacia (Moujahed et al., 2000) Block 12 Block 12 PEG None Block 6 Block 7 PEG Block 13 Block 14c Block 15c None Block 18d Block 19 + PEG Block 19 PEG 37.7 58.8 34.3 44.2 44.4 37.3 49.9 53.8 34.8 61.2 60.1 67.7 Block 13.7 14.0 15.8 15.0 22.3 22.6 31.7 11.2 14.3 13.6 Digestibility OM 333 432 517 502 537 523 546 554 552 655 631 649 CP 435 551 304 513 642 395 333 573 332 471 578 596 1.5 2.5 0.4 4.1 7.7 5.8 2.4 11.2 1.3 6.3 6.7 8.8 4.9 11.5 ndb nd nd 1.3 10.0 14.9 nd nd nd nd 14 61 nd nd nd 2 59 62 nd nd nd nd Nr MPS Growth

Acacia (Ben Salem et al., 2002)

Kermes oak (Ben Salem et al., in press)

Each block is followed with the number of corresponding formula, which is reported in Tables 2 and 3. Not determined. c Block 14 (U, +PEG): free-urea and PEG-containing block. Block 15 (+U, +PEG): urea and PEG-containing block. d Block 18 distributed with PEG in concentrate or without PEG. Block 19 containing PEG.
b

block supply on product quality (i.e. meat and milk) of sheep and goat is available in the literature. It is clear from data compiled in Table 5 that block provision for sheep and goat on browse foliage as sole diet promoted considerably intake, digestibility and animal growth. Worth noting that these blocks may replace concentrate feeds without negative effect on diet nutritive value and daily gains. The use of PEG, an expensive reagent, to deactivate tannins in browse foliage could be rejected when appropriate blocks are provided. 5. Feed blocks as carrier of anthelmintic medicines Another potential for feed block supplementation that can be exploited is through the use of medical blocks, for example to control parasites. This supplementation strategy can prove to be highly advantageous especially in the extensive system of sheep and goat production where there is little control over the animals. Several authors (McBeath et al., 1979; Bogan and Marriner, 1983) proved the success of feed blocks in controlling nematode parasites of sheep. Anindo et al. (1998) conrmed this success when medicated

molassesurea blocks (formula 10, Table 2) have been distributed to grazing ram lambs for strategic prophylactic treatment against nematodes. Medicated blocks were as efcient in treating against endoparasites as drenching with benzimidazole anthelmintic fenbendazole. Faecal egg counts were lowest in grazing lambs supplemented with blocks daily (80 g per head per day) and with medicated blocks. 6. Economic benet How much feed block use will reduce the feeding cost and increase income from sheep and goat production is often the main question raised by end-users. Therefore, economic aspects should be born in mind starting from the choice of ingredients and their proportions to the appropriate way for their integration into livestock feeding. Unfortunately, this issue was not sufciently investigated. Houmani and Tisserand (1999) concluded that the ration containing feed blocks (formulas 2 and 3, Table 2) enabled a saving of, respectively, 13.6 and 16.7% on the feeding cost per day with dry ewes and 12 and 23% on the feeding cost per kg of weight with growing lambs compared to the ration containing the concentrate. Using other

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288

287

formula of feed blocks based on olive cake, Ben Salem et al. (unpublished data) found that the cost of daily gain of lamb sheep on barley straw supplemented with blocks (formula 15, Table 3) and only 125 g of concentrate decreased by 18% as compared to those given barley straw and 500 g of concentrate. El Hag et al. (2002) claimed that it was economically viable to use feed blocks containing date by-products and urea (formula 20, Table 3) to sheep and goats in the Sultanate of Oman since the cost per kg gain was reduced by 38% compared to the control diet (grass hay and concentrate).

References
Al-Haboby, A.H., Salman, A.D., Abdul Kareem, T.A., 1999. Inuence of protein supplementation on reproductive traits of Awassi sheep grazing cereal stubble. Small Rum. Res. 34, 33 40. Alibes, X., Tisserand, J.L., 1990. Tables of the nutritive value for ruminants of Mediterranean forages and by-products. Options Mditerranennes 4, 137. Anindo, D., To, F., Tembely, S., Mukasa-Mugerwa, E., Lahlou-Kassi, A., Sovani, S., 1998. Effect of molasses urea-block (MUB) on dry matter intake, growth, reproductive performance and control of gastrointestinal nematode infection of grazing Menz ram lambs. Small Rum. Res. 27, 6371. Anonyme, 2001. Annual report for 1999/2000 season of the Mashreq and Maghreb project (The development of integrated crop/livestock production in the low rainfall areas of West Asia and North Africa). ICARDA, 413 pp. Ben Salem, H., Nefzaoui, A., Ben Salem, L., Tisserand, J.L., 1999. Different means of administrating polyethylene glycol to sheep: effect on the nutritive value of Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage. Anim. Sci. 68, 809818. Ben Salem, H., Nefzaoui, A., Ben Salem, L., 2000a. Supplementing range goats in Central Tunisia with feed blocks or a mixture of Opuntia cus indica var. inermis and Atriplex nummularia. Effects on behavioural activities and growth. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Goats, France, May 1521, 2000, pp. 988989. Ben Salem, H., Nefzaoui, A., Ben Salem, L., Tisserand, J.L., 2000b. Deactivation of condensed tannins in Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage by polyethylene glycol in feed blocks. Effects on feed intake, diet digestibility, nitrogen balance, microbial synthesis and growth by sheep. Livest. Prod. Sci. 64, 5160. Ben Salem, H., Nefzaoui, A., Messaoudi, L., 2001. Les blocs alimentaires base de grignons dolive. Une alternative conomique pour la complmentation des fourrages pauvres. Annales de lINRAT 74, 187203. Ben Salem, H., Atti, N., Priolo, A., Nefzaoui, A., 2002. Polyethylene glycol in concentrate or feed blocks to deactivate condensed tannins in Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage. 1. Effects on feed intake, digestion and growth by Barbarine lambs. Anim. Sci. 75, 127135. Ben Salem, H., Ben Salem, L., Nefzaoui, A., Ben Sa d, M.S., in press. Effect of PEG and olive cake feed blocks supply on feed intake, digestion and health of goats given kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.) foliage. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. Bogan, J.A., Marriner, S.E., 1983. Uptake of fenbendazole by grazing sheep with access to feed blocks containing fenbendazole. Br. Vet. J. 139, 223227. Chenost, M., Kayouli, C., 1997. Utilisation des fourrages grossiers en rgions chaudes. In: Etude FAO Production et Sant Animales, vol. 135. FAO, Rome, 1997, 226 pp. Chermiti, A., 1998. Utilisation des gues de barbarie en remplacement de la mlasse dans les blocs nutritionnels. Effets sur lingestion volontaire. Ann. Zootech. 47, 179184. Cordier, G., 1947. De la composition de quelques produits fourragers tunisiens et de leur valeur pour lalimentation du mouton. Ann. Service Botan. Agron. Tunisie 20, 25108.

7. Conclusion and recommendations It is mandatory that the bulk of the feed given to small ruminants raised under harsh environments is locally available, as it is mostly uneconomic to use imported feed sources mainly concentrate feeds and to avoid concurrence for grain feeds which are preferably allocated for human consumption (i.e. cereal grains) and/or for high producing animals (e.g. dairy cattle). Feed block technology may play an important role in sheep and goat production and improve farmers income. These supplements improve the nutritive value of low quality diets along with production and reproductive performance of small ruminants, and alleviate feeding cost. The success of this technology depends on numerous factors mainly appropriate choice of ingredients and their proportions and manufacturing procedure. Other advantages may account for the interest devoted to this technology as blocks may be used to vehicle microelements and vitamins to improve reproductive performance and as carrier of PEG to make better use of tannin-containing browse foliage. Additionally, anthelmintic medicines may be included in blocks to control parasites in grazing animals. Further research is needed to explore the effect of feed blocks on rumen fermentation and product quality (meat and milk). Economic evaluation of this technology should be henceforth considered in all studies on replacement value of blocks for concentrate feeds. The need for farmer participation in research and technology transfer stemmed from the fact that block technology is still not widely adopted by farmers, especially in low rainfall areas.

288

H. Ben Salem, A. Nefzaoui / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 275288 Leng, R.A., 1990. Factors affecting the utilisation of poor-quality forages by ruminants particularly under tropical conditions. Nutr. Res. Rev. 3, 277303. Makkar, H.P.S., 2003. Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Rum. Res. 49 (2003) 241256. McBeath, D.G., Preston, N.K., Thompson, F., 1979. Studies on the efcacy of fenbendazole administered via feed-block carrier. Br. Vet. J. 135, 271278. Moujahed, N., Kayouli, C., Thewis, A., Beckers, Y., Rezgui, S., 2000. Effect of multinutrient blocks and polyethylene glycol 4000 supplies on intake and digestion by sheep fed Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage-based diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 88, 219238. Nefzaoui, A., 1999. Olive Tree By-products. ICARDA, 124 pp. Nefzaoui, A., Ben Salem, H., 1999. Pastoral systems dominated by cereal/fallow combination in North Africa and West Asia. Options Mditerranennes 39, 199212. Nyarko-Badohu, D.K., Kayouli, C., B a, A.A., Gasmi, A., 1994. Valorisation des pailles de crales en alimentation des ovins dans le nord de la Tunisie: traitement lure et lammoniac et complmentation par des blocks mlasse-ure. Options Mditerranennes, Srie B: Etudes et Recherches 6, 129 141. OCallaghan, D., Boland, M.P., 1999. Nutritional effects on ovulation, embryo development and the establishment of pregnancy in ruminants. Anim. Sci. 68, 299314. Priolo, A., Ben Salem, H., Atti, N., Nefzaoui, A., 2002. Polyethylene glycol in concentrate or feed blocks to deactivate condensed tannins in Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage. 2. Effects on meat quality of Barbarine lambs. Anim. Sci. 75, 137140. Salman, A.D., Khatab, K.K., Ibrahim, K., 1997. Using urea feed blocks in fattening Awassi lambs. In: Nasri, H., Tutwiler, R., Thomson, E. (Eds.), Improvement of Crop-livestock Integration Systems in West Asia and North Africa. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Integrated Crop-livestock Systems in the Dry Areas of West Asia and North Africa, Amman, Jordan. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, November 68,1995, pp. xi + 572 + 40, 390394. Sansoucy, R., 1986. The Sahel: manufacture and molassesurea blocks. World Anim. Rev. 57, 4048. Sancoucy, R., 1995. New development in the manufacture and utilization of multinutrient blocks. World Anim. Rev. 82, 78 83. Smith, O.B., Akinbamijo, O.O., 2000. Micronutrients and reproduction in farm animals. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 6061, 549 560. Sudana, I.B., Leng, R.A., 1986. Effects of supplementing a wheat straw diet with urea or ureamolasses blocks and/or cottonseed meal on intake and liveweight change of lambs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 16, 2535. Waghorn, G.C., Reed, J.D., Ndlovu, L.R., 1999. Condensed tannins and herbivore nutrition. In: Buchanan-Smith, J.G., Bailey, L.D., McCaughy, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Grassland Congress, vol. 3. Association Management Centre, Calgary, pp. 153166.

Depeters, E.J., Dally, M.R., Alwash, A.A., Therkelsen-Tucker, P., 1985. The use of supplement blocks for sheep grazing dry, annual pastures in California. J. Range Manage. 38 (4), 291 295. Doyle, P.T., Dove, H., Freer, M., Hart, F.J., Dixon, R.M., Egan, A.R., 1988. Effects of a concentrate supplement on the intake and digestion of a low-quality forage by lambs. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 111, 503511. El Hag, M.G., Al-Merza, M.A., Al-Salti, B., 2002. Growth in the Sultanate of Oman of small ruminants given date by-productsurea multinutrient blocks. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15 (5), 671674. Galina, M.A., Guerrero, M., Serrano, G., Morales, R., Haenlein, G.F.W., 2000. Effect of complex catalytic supplementation with non-protein nitrogen on the ruminal ecosystem of growing goats pasturing on shrub land in Mexico. Small Rum. Res. 36, 3342. Getachew, G., Makkar, H.P.S., Becker, K., 2001. Method of polyethylene glycol application to tannin-containing browses to improve microbial fermentation and efciency of microbial protein synthesis from tannin-containing browses. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 92, 5157. Hadjipanayiotou, M., 1992. Urea blocks and agricultural by-products for feeding sheep in the critical rainfall zones, Mashreq region. In: Haddad, N., Tutwiler, R. (Eds.), Crop and Livestock Improvement in Mashreq Region. Proceedings of the Mashreq Workshop on Increased Productivity of Barley, Pastures and Sheep in the Critical Rainfall Zones, Amman, Jordan. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, December 1315, 1992, pp. 180189. Hadjipanayiotou, M., 1997. The role of crop residues and agro-industrial by-products in lling the decit of animal feedstuffs in the middle East. In: Haddad, N., Tutwiler, R., Thomson, E. (Eds.), Improvement of Crop-livestock Integration Systems in West Asia and North Africa. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Integrated Crop-livestock Systems in the Dry Areas of West Asia and North Africa, Amman, Jordan. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, November 68, 1995, pp. xi+572+40, 372385. Hadjipanayiotou, M., Verhaeghe, L., Allen, M., Kronfoleh, A.R., Al-Wadi, M., Amin, M., El-Said, H., Al-Haress, A.K., 1993a. Urea blocks. I. Methodology of feed block making and different formulae tested in Syria. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 5 (3), 18. Hadjipanayiotou, M., Verhaeghe, L., Kronfoleh, A.R., Labban, L.M., Amin, M., Al-Wadi, M., Badran, A., Dawa, K., Shurbaji, A., Houssein, M., Malki, G., Naigm, T., Merawi, A.R., Haress, A.K., 1993b. Urea blocks. II. Performance of cattle and sheep offered urea blocks in Syria. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 5 (3), 17. Hassoun, P., 1989. Mise au point dune technique de fabrication de blocs ure sans mlasse. Compte rendu de mission effectue en Tunisie 26/2 au 10/3/1989. Houmani, M., Tisserand, J.L., 1999. Complmentation dune paille de bl avec des blocs multinutritionnels: effets sur la digestibilit de la paille et intr et pour des brebis taries et des agneaux en croissance. Ann. Zootech. 48, 199209. INRA, 1988. Jarrige, R. (Ed.), Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et Caprins. INRA, Paris, 476 pp.