Next Article in Journal
Human Factor Index Measurement Using an ISM-SEM-Fuzzy Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
The Inclusion of Jujube By-Products in Animal Feed: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Post-Extraction Novel Ecosystems Support Plant and Vegetation Diversity in Urban-Industrial Landscapes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/su14137620
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Ruminant Lick Blocks, Particularly in China: A Review

by
Xinsheng Zhao
1,
Allan Degen
2,
Lizhuang Hao
1,* and
Shujie Liu
1,*
1
Key Laboratory of Plateau Grazing Animal Nutrition and Feed Science of Qinghai Province, State Key Laboratory of Plateau Ecology and Agriculture, Qinghai Plateau Yak Research Center, Qinghai Academy of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine of Qinghai University, Xining 810016, China
2
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Wyler Department of Dryland Agriculture, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 8410500, Israel
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7620; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137620
Submission received: 26 May 2022 / Revised: 17 June 2022 / Accepted: 18 June 2022 / Published: 22 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass Resource Utilization)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A lick block (LB) is a solidified mixture of molasses, urea, minerals, filler, coagulant and binder that is supplemented to livestock mainly in relatively extensive rearing systems. It provides nutrients, such as soluble sugars, proteins, minerals and vitamins to balance dietary intake and can improve rumen fermentation and facilitate digestion and absorption of nutrients. These supplements improve livestock production, reproduction and carcass quality. In addition, LB can partially replace concentrate, serve as a delivery vehicle for additives such as enzymes and drugs and mediate the distribution of grazing livestock. This paper classifies and analyzes representative research; discusses the types, ingredients and current status of the utilization of LB; and systematically reviews the processing technology, quality assessment, influencing factors of intake, action mechanism and application. This review can provide a basis for the development, popularization and application of novel LB products.

1. Introduction

Cattle and sheep breeding systems in China include grazing, grazing combined with stall-feeding, and stall-feeding. Over-grazing has degraded the grassland. Consequently, currently, there is a grazing prohibition period in many pastoral areas in China [1]. Only withered grass is available for up to 7 months each year, and, at this time, cattle and sheep consume mainly roughage based on hay, straw and silage. Either no dietary supplements or minor supplements of concentrate are offered to the animals. The quantity and quality of the forage are poor, resulting in substantial bodyweight losses in ruminants and reduced productivity and reproduction [2,3]. Because of land constraints due to urbanization, degradation of pastures and conversion of grazing land to cropland, cattle and sheep are more dependent on concentrate, which increases the cost of raising them. Under the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, the output of domestic and foreign feed ingredients decreased, and prices rose sharply. This increased the competition between people and animals for grain and limited the supply of feed resources and animal products. Therefore, the offering of lick blocks (LBs) to ruminants is a viable alternative to overcome the previously mentioned issues.
LBs provide continuous nutrients for rumen microorganisms and host animals, modulate the rumen environment, improve rumen fermentation, facilitate digestion and absorption of nutrients and compensate for insufficient and/or unbalanced nutrient intake [3,4,5,6]. The supplement can improve livestock production, reproduction and carcass quality [2,3,7,8,9,10,11] and increase the income of farmers. The inclusion of agro-industrial by-products in LB reduces the use of concentrates and feeding costs and alleviates the problem of competing with humans for grain [12,13]. LB can also be used as carriers of additives such as enzymes and drugs to improve the digestibility of low-quality roughage and treat and/or prevent animal diseases [14,15,16]. However, it is important to be aware that LBs can transmit diseases and, therefore, proper precautions should be taken [17,18]. In grazing livestock, LBs not only play a nutritional role but can also mediate the distribution of the livestock and reduce grassland degradation caused by over-grazing [19,20]. LBs have the advantages of a simple manufacturing process, low production cost, convenient storage and easy transportation. It has been used in all continents, covering more than 60 countries [21], and its application has been expanded from ruminants to non-ruminants such as pigs [22], rabbits [23] and horses [24]. This paper discusses the current status of LB use and provides theoretical and scientific bases for improving its production and utilization.

2. Types of Lick Blocks

The types of LB are varied, and there is no consistent naming standard. According to their functions, LBs can be divided into two types. The first type, which is called a nutrient block (NB), supplies essential needs such as energy, protein, minerals and vitamins. At present, most NBs are composed of a variety of ingredients. Therefore, NBs are also called multi-nutrient blocks, among which urea molasses multi-nutrient block is common [25]. The second type, which is called a mineral block (MB) [26], salt block or mineral salt block [27], supplies mainly minerals. MB is made with mainly salt as a carrier, and the salt content usually exceeds 65% (Table 1, MB1 and MB2), while most NBs are made with molasses as a carrier (Table 1, NB5 and NB17).

3. Ingredients Composition and Current Status of Lick Block Usage

There are many ingredients in LB, including molasses, urea, bran (wheat bran, rice bran), cake (soybean meal, cottonseed meal, olive cake, sunflower meal), grain seed (corn, soybean, barley, fava bean) and unconventional feeds (moringa oleifera leaf, citrus pulp, tomato pulp, cucumber waste, mango waste, avocado waste, grape marc, cactus waste, corn distiller’s dried grains with solubles, bagasse and poultry manure), cement, quicklime, salt and minerals. The ruminant species and its physiological status determine the type of LB to be offered. The availability, nutritional value, costs, tractability and overall impact on the quality of LB determine the choice of ingredients. For the most efficient use and desired effect, LB formulation should follow the following principles:
  • Clarify the purpose for production;
  • Determine the nutrient requirement of the animal;
  • Determine the type and proportion of components; and;
  • Constantly adjust and optimize the ingredients.

3.1. Urea

Urea is the most widely used non-protein nitrogen (NPN) compound in ruminant rations [28] and has the advantages of high nitrogen (N) content, low cost and substantial feeding effect [28,29]. The rumen microbiota can utilize both true protein and NPN [30] to synthesize microbial protein required for ruminant growth, so more high-quality protein can bypass the rumen and save protein resources [31]. However, the direct utilization of urea by ruminants is limited by poor palatability. The addition of molasses and other attractants to LB disguises the bad flavor of urea; however, urea intake should be monitored to prevent ammonia poisoning. The addition of urea should not exceed 13% of the weight of the NB (Table 1) and should not be offered to monogastrics and young ruminants. In sheep, dry matter intake (DMI) with the addition of urea in LB is higher than untreated hay and hay treated with a urea solution [32]. By adding a urea–calcium sulfate mixture, urea in LB can be released slowly, and beneficial results were reported in both in vivo (Table 1, NB1) and in vitro (Table 1, NB2) studies in beef cattle and buffalo [33,34]. Other methods for slow-release urea include adding formaldehyde-treated urea, grease-protected urea and polymer-encapsulated urea to the LB [35].

3.2. Molasses

Molasses, also known as syrup, is a by-product of the sugar industry and is a high-quality energy resource that is often used in ruminant production [36]. Molasses usually refers to high-yield sugarcane molasses, but there are also beet, citrus and date molasses [37]. There were 60 million tons of sugarcane and beet molasses produced worldwide in 2007 (FAO statistics do not differentiate between both origins) [37]. The main components of molasses include natural sucrose, glucose and fructose, with a total sugar content of 45 to 51% [38]. The dry matter (DM) content is 72 to 79%, and it contains 4 to 10% crude protein (CP) content, and 1 to 2% ether extract (EE) content [38]. Molasses requires an infrastructure for storage, transport and handling, so feeding liquid molasses is difficult for smallholders or nomadic pastoralists. Including molasses in LB not only facilitates feeding molasses but also makes it more cohesive. The cohesiveness depends on the sugar content, known as the Brix value (BV), which is expressed as the percentage of sugar content, by weight, of molasses [36]. In order to ensure proper hardening of the LB, the BV of the molasses should be at least 85% [39]. Because molasses is expensive, LBs without molasses have been developed in many countries [40,41].

3.3. Minerals

Minerals, in addition to protein and energy, are important elements that play vital roles by serving in structural, physiological, regulatory and catalytic functions in animals [27,42]. Mineral deficiencies can have negative effects on animal health, immune system and fertility [43], and severe deficiencies can even lead to death. The inclusion of minerals in LB compensates for deficiencies in the diet to meet the requirement of the animal, especially for rumen fermentation. For example, sheep grazing in the cold season are provided with LB rich in sodium, phosphorus, copper and selenium [44]. Grazing livestock in N fertilized pastures are provided with LB rich in copper [45]. Ruminants consuming low-quality forage are provided with LB rich in various mineral elements. The addition should be in accordance with authoritative nutritional requirement standards such as NRC or ARC and then combined with any specific needs of the animals. For example, cattle are provided with LB rich in bicarbonate to prevent and treat subacute rumen acidosis [27,46], and dairy cows are provided with LB rich in selenium, zinc and copper to prevent mastitis [27,47]. Sodium in LB is generally in the form of low-cost salt, which mediates LB intake, acts as an antiseptic and fulfills a nutritional role [17]. Trace minerals are often in additive premix, which provides iron, manganese, zinc, copper, selenium, iodine and cobalt. Organic mineral sources such as oyster shell, eggshell and bone meal can also be used [48,49].

3.4. Filler

Fillers, which comprise 18 to 94% of NB (Table 1), play a structural support role. Pure MB, however, does not require filler (Table 1, MB1 and MB2). Fillers are generally classified into bran, cake and grain seeds. The most commonly used is wheat bran, which comprises 4 to 32% of NB (Table 1). Wheat bran is a by-product of wheat flour processing, and the annual output in China is approximately 32 million tons [50]. Wheat bran in NB not only provides structural support but is also rich in nutrients. The quality of wheat bran has an impact on the structure, shape and hardness of LB. The coarser the wheat bran, the better the structure of the LB. However, the hardness of LB decreases if the proportion of wheat bran is too high or if rice bran is used instead of wheat bran [8,51]. Sunflower meal, barley flour, olive cake, fava bean flour, corn distiller’s dried grains with solubles (Table 1) and Tithonia diversifolia leaf powder [52] can replace wheat bran, either partially or completely.

3.5. Coagulant

The coagulant, also known as the curing agent, is used mainly to increase the hardness of LB and limit excessive intake by animals [51]. There are many types of coagulants for LB, including calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, cement and quicklime, with cement and quicklime commonly used today (Table 1). Portland cement and ordinary Portland cement are the most common cement, but slag cement, pozzolan cement and fly ash cement are also used [4]. The main components of cement are silica and quicklime, with lesser amounts of oxides of aluminum, magnesium, sulfur, iron and potassium [53]. Mubi et al. [54] reported that cement contained 26 ppm iron, 180 ppm manganese and 139 ppm magnesium. Therefore, cement not only acts as a curing agent but also provides minerals. Some nutritionists and extension workers stated that cement might have negative effects on animals [39], but Hu [4] and Xu [55] reported that the addition of 5% and 8%, respectively, had no adverse effects (Table 1, NB7 and NB9). Asaolu [56] compared the inclusion of 15, 17 and 20% cement and concluded that 15% cement had the same or better curing effect than the other two. Excessive cement may result in an LB that is too hard.

3.6. Binder

Binder is important to bind the bulk ingredients. Bentonite, which is often used (Table 1), is a common smectite clay mineral that is composed mainly of montmorillonite. It has a large specific surface area, cation exchange capacity and adsorption capacity. Bentonite has the advantages of strong binding, non-toxicity, enormous reserves, wide distribution and low price [51]. It is divided into sodium bentonite and calcium bentonite, according to its interlayer ions [57], and its inclusion is generally 8 to 30% of LB (Table 1). Excessive bentonite may reduce its ability to waterproof the LB to a point where it can be easily nibbled by animals [58]. In addition, bentonite contains some macro and trace minerals, including potassium, sodium, magnesium, aluminum, iron and zinc [59]. It was reported that adding 0.1% to 0.3% to the diet for beef cattle can improve average daily gain (ADG), cold carcass weight, marbling score and quality grade without any adverse effects [60]. In an in vitro gastrointestinal tract study, bentonite adsorbed mycotoxins such as aflatoxin, zearalenone and deoxynivalenol [61], thereby inhibiting or reducing the absorption of mycotoxins.
Table
Table 1. Formulae and chemical composition of lick blocks.
Table 1. Formulae and chemical composition of lick blocks.
ItemsFormulae 1
NB1NB2NB3NB4NB5NB6NB7NB8NB9NB10NB11NB12NB13NB14NB15NB16NB17MB1MB2
Ingredient (%)
Urea--1010551310100.40.4-2888---
Molasses3838102040252020252.15.16221012121252512
Wheat bran---4-3218-272022.1--------
Rapeseed meal--10----------------
Cottonseed meal-------------555---
Sesame seed meal--10----------------
Sunflower meal---------25.82518-------
Wheat flour--3----------------
Corn flour--15------1022--------
Dry hay meal--3----------------
Distillery dry grain soluble-------------242121---
Cereal straw---------98--------
Rice bran3030--45--------------
Bypass protein meal----------------8--
Barley grain flour-----------3220------
Fava bean flour------------40------
Olive cake-----------1210------
Mango pulp and peels ---------29---------
Avocado pulp and peels ----------14.8--------
Palm soap---------1.20.04--------
Tallow22-----------------
NaCl1-720246–103010--66855106566
CaHPO4---12.5---10---------18-
CaCO3---------22--------
Sulfur11-----------------
Na2SO4-----------------5-
Bone meal--2----------------
Limestone-------------888--5
Mineral premix11-8.5-526–30510----151515--8
Vitamin–mineral premix ---------0.50.533----2-
CaO -------------333---
MgO-------------444---
Quicklime---58------79------
Cement910----5-8----------
Bentonite--3020--8-10----1399--9
Dolamite-----6-------------
Urea–formaldehyde resin-----------------2-
Mold release agent-----------------1.5-
Urea calcium sulfate mixture1818-----------------
Fenbendazole----------------0.05--
Yeast culture--------------10----
Cellulase---------------10---
Chemical composition (g/kg, DM)
DM 780730---928---889926790760764774768---
Ash296243---215-----269260246226231---
CP 350355430-160355---189173104132428502464---
EE 24----7---313933------
NDF 270146---161---422 2410167127202192183---
ADF21194---102---194 32448024827881---
Ca-----54-------55555627--
P-----20-------19191913--
1 NB1: Cherdthong et al. [33], NB2: Cherdthong and Wanapat [34], NB3: Dong et al. [2], NB4: Li [8], NB5: Vu et al. [7], NB6: Bipate [11], NB7: Hu [4], NB8: Dong et al. [62], NB9: Xu [55], NB10: de Evan et al. [13], NB11: de Evan et al. [12], NB12 and NB13: Molina-Alcaide et al. [63], NB14, NB15 and NB16: Can [14], NB17: Olmo et al. [64], MB1: Xing [65], MB2: Liu [66]; 2 aNDFom: neutral detergent fiber with heat-stable amylase and expressed exclusive of residual ash; 3 ADFom: acid detergent fiber expressed exclusive of residual ash.

4. Manufacturing Technology of Lick Blocks

The casting and pressing methods are mainly used in manufacturing LBs [67,68]. In the casting method, also known as the chemical pouring method, the mixed ingredients for LB are poured into a mold, and then the mold is removed to allow the LB to dry [67]. This is called the hot process, which depends mainly on the binding action of heated molasses. In 1986, the FAO Feed Resource Group modified the “hot process” to the “cold process”, where heating the ingredients was not required and coagulants and binders such as calcium and magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide, di-ammonium phosphate, cement and bentonite were used [69]. This simplified the manufacturing process, as heating equipment is not needed. In the pressing method, also known as the extrusion molding method, the bulk ingredients for LB, except for coagulants and binder, are poured into a mold and then extruded by an external pressing device. The mold is then removed to allow the LB to dry. The casting and pressing methods differ in the binding; the casting method uses coagulant and binder, while the pressing method uses external force. Compared with the pressing method, the casting method employs simple equipment and production processes but has a long molding time, loose texture, unstable quality and low production efficiency [70]; consequently, the pressing method is more suitable for large-scale production.
The LB technology was introduced into China in the 1990s. In the early stages, NB was produced mainly by a combination of casting and pressing methods. Based on the pressing method, appropriate amounts of coagulant and binder were added by the casting method. For example, Li [1] used 2% cement as coagulant and 10% palygorskite as a binder, and hydraulic pressure of 8 to 9 MPa to produce NB. The manufacturing of MB was determined according to the components. Pure MB adopted the pressing method [71], while non-pure MB used coagulant and binder and then was pressed [72]. The pressing method of LB changed from the early manual and manual hydraulic pressing to the commonly used electro-hydraulic pressing. Ultimately, a fully automatic LB production system emerged [73]. The choice of production mode is related to the purpose and economic status of the livestock raiser. When the cost of labor is low, and the quantity of LB required is modest, or when the LB is produced on the farm, the LB is made by hand; otherwise, a concrete mixer is commonly used for mixing the ingredients [21].

5. Quality Evaluation of Lick Blocks

As a product, LB does not have a firm set of criteria for evaluation. The quality of LB is assessed mainly by parameters such as hardness, density and waterproofness, and phenotypic traits such as surface roughness, crack size, color and smell. In addition, chemical analysis, in vitro rumen fermentation and animal feeding trials are also considered (Table 2). The hardness of LB has important implications for storage, transport and animal intake. Sansoucy [74] divided the hardness of LB into five grades, which is still used at present, as it is simple and cheap, but it is subjective and not scientific (Number 1, Table 2). A more accurate method to determine the hardness of LB is by penetrometer (Chattillon, NY, USA. GAUGE R. -CATL 719-20), which measures the pressure required to insert a rod into the LB to a predetermined depth [54]. Hardness is then calculated according to Equation (3) in Table 2. In China, crushers are commonly used to measure the crushing strength of LB, which is also known as compressive strength [75] and represents the hardness of LB (Equation (2), Table 2). Many factors that affect the hardness of LB were considered, including pressing pressure [4], the salt ratio [65], type, ratio of binder to coagulant [58], curing time and the proportion of the bulk ingredients [76]. The hardness of LB is greatest by using the casting plus the pressing method (41.4 kg/cm2) [1], then the pressing method (30 kg/cm2) [77] and finally the casting method (2.5–4.5 kg/cm2) [78]. The density of LB determines its hardness, which is calculated by Equation (3) in Table 2. The level of waterproofness of LB, usually measured by the degree of deliquescence, is important as it affects its storage, transportation and service life. The phenotypic traits of LB can be assessed by visual inspection by experienced personnel (Number 8, Table 2). The nutritional value and storage stability of LBs are evaluated by measuring the contents of nutrients and anti-nutrients and the disappearance of nutrients after long-term storage (Number 9, Table 2). Following the above evaluations, the nutritive value of LB can be examined by in vitro rumen fermentation and animal feeding studies (Numbers 10 and 11, Table 2).

6. Factors Influencing Lick Block Intake

The measurement of LB intake is required to determine whether the LB meets the needs of animals. It is important to feed LB accurately, which can be measured by an electronic feeder [82] or accelerometer [26]. Ruminants licking an LB is due to their “nutrition wisdom”, which stimulates them to seek and consume salt at a level that meets or exceeds their requirement for sodium [83]. Therefore, MB controls the intake mainly by manipulating the salt level. The proportion of salt in NB is relatively small, and feed attractants such as molasses, citric acid or corn starch are generally added to entice animals to lick the LB. However, this does not necessarily mean that the higher the salt content in the LB, the greater the intake, as the intake is also affected by a combination of other factors. As demonstrated by Chládek and Zapletal [84], grazing and stall-fed beef cattle select relatively less LB with high salt content when sodium deficient, but prefer LB for an optimal calcium–phosphorus ratio. Ranches et al. [67] reported that intake of LB was 40% lower with mineral additives than without the additives. They also reported that calves preferred copper, zinc and manganese from hydroxyl chloride sources than from organic and sulfate sources, possibly due to feed aversion, as mineral additives from organic and sulfate sources have a “metallic-like” taste. Aubel et al. [85] reported that consumption of LB appeared to decline over time as the forage transitioned from winter dormancy to active spring growth. Moriel et al. [86] reported that beef cattle fed a low-quality hay-based diet had a high LB intake in the first week that remained unchanged until the sixth week. The results of both studies indicated that there was an adaptation period for animals to lick LB, and the LB intake was related to the quality of the basal diet. In addition, the cleanliness of the LB surface also affects intake [87]. The variation in LB intake is large, ranging from 12.3 g/d to 500.0 g/d (Table 3), and depends on body size, physiological condition, production stage and nutrient requirements of the animals. In addition, the hardness of LB affects LB intake. Hu [4] demonstrated that the pressing pressure of LB was correlated positively with the hardness of LB within a certain pressure range, and the hardness of LB was correlated negatively with the LB intake. In summary, the LB intake of animals is affected mainly by the composition and quality of LB and the basal diet, surface cleanliness of the LB, animal species and animal physiological status.

7. Action Mechanisms and Application Effect of Lick Blocks

The function and health of the rumen depend mainly on rumen microorganisms [88]. The growth and reproduction of rumen microorganisms depend on the rumen not only to provide appropriate temperature, osmotic pressure, pH and anaerobic conditions but also for fermentable carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, vitamins and other nutrients. When the nutrients are insufficient or unbalanced to meet the requirement of rumen microorganisms, the LB can continually balance the supply of needed nutrients, stimulate saliva secretion, improve the activity of rumen microorganisms, alter the community structure and quantity of rumen microorganisms, improve the digestive enzyme activities of the gastrointestinal tract and modulate the rumen environment [3,5,6]. The enhancement of rumen fermentation improves digestibility of the diet, increases the passage rate of roughage through the gastrointestinal tract, reduces the degree of rumen fill and increases dietary intake and, therefore, nutrients [4,89], which aids in fulfilling the requirements of rumen microorganisms and the host (Figure 1).

7.1. Lick Blocks Affect the Productive and Reproductive Performances of Ruminants

To date, numerous feeding trials have been conducted to evaluate the effect of LB on the productive performance of ruminants. Supplementary LB has a positive effect on the weight gain or reduction in weight loss in yaks, Tibetan sheep, beef cattle, buffaloes, sheep and goats (Table 3). The ADG of grazing yak calves supplemented with MB1 was 60.8% greater in the cold season [90] and 18.3% greater in the warm season [91] than control calves. The weight loss of sheep grazing withered grass and supplemented with NB was substantially less than control sheep [92], while the ADG of beef cattle fed a TMR diet supplemented with NB was 8.0% greater than control cattle [93]. Therefore, LB has the greatest effect on livestock consuming a poor quality or an insufficient basal diet. In addition to having a positive effect on body weight, LB also improves milk yield and quality and wool yield (Table 3) and can improve reproduction in male and female livestock. Energy, protein and minerals in LB enhance the development of the reproductive system, increase the level of reproductive hormones in the serum of postpartum females, promote the development of reproductive organs, shorten the calving interval, regulate the estrous cycle, reduce the number of matings and increase calving rate (Table 3). More nutrients are supplied for fetal development, and birth weight and survival rate of newborns are increased when pregnant females are offered LB, while the quantity and quality of semen are improved when males are offered LB (Table 3).

7.2. Lick Blocks Can Partially Replace Concentrates

NB can partially replace concentrates in the dietary ration. Carlos et al. [81] examined in vitro fermentation of avocado and mango wastes (peels and a pulp:peels (PP) mixture) with goat rumen fluid and the potential of including the PP mixture in NB for goats. The wastes had high moisture content, high levels of non-structural carbohydrates from mango and high levels of fat from avocado. A PP mixture of each fruit was suitable for LB by including nutrients from other sources. When a PP mixture of avocado and mango replaced 50% of alfalfa hay, in vitro fermentation parameters and gas production were similar to those of alfalfa hay. These results suggested that mango and avocado wastes can be included in NB for goats.
Subsequently, de Evan et al. [12,13] replaced 50% of concentrate fed to dairy goats with NB10 and NB11 from mango and avocado waste by-products. This dietary modification had little impact on nutrient intake and digestibility and the milk yield and composition of goats (Table 3). In addition, when NB based on tomato or cucumber wastes replaced 50% of concentrate in diets based on alfalfa hay, feeding costs decreased by 32%, fermentation parameters were improved, the relative abundance of methanogenic archaea increased and digestible energy was not affected, but N retention was reduced by up to 29% in non-productive goats [94]. When NB based on olive cake replaced 50% of the concentrate in feed to goats, nutrient utilization, N value of the diet and milk composition were not affected. The decrease in milk yield in these goats was compensated by a better quality of milk, decreased cost of feeding and the environmental advantage of including by-products in NB [63]. The common characteristics of these agro-industrial by-products are large seasonal yields, high moisture content and unbalanced main nutrients, which need to be used quickly before spoiling. Using these high moisture agro-industrial by-products in LB reduces environmental pollution, the use of concentrate and feeding costs and alleviates the problem of competition between people and animals for grains. Currently, such LBs of agro-industrial by-products are mostly for small ruminants in the Mediterranean region. The production of LB based on cost-effective alternative feed resources and local feed resources should be developed further in the future, as it can help ensure the sustainability of animal husbandry.

7.3. Lick Blocks Can Be Used as a Carrier for Additives

With the continuous development of LB technology, more additives, including enzymes, drugs, growth-promoting factors, chemical reagents, flavors and preservatives are being incorporated. Ainscough et al. [95] examined the stability of adding phytase and xylanase in LB under different temperature conditions. At 60 °C, phytase and xylanase can be added, while at 100 °C, xylanase can be added to LB without adverse effects. These results could lead to testing other enzymes in the future. Compared with steers fed conventional LB (NB14, Table 1), steers fed LB with added yeast culture (NB15, Table 1) or cellulolytic enzymes (NB16, Table 1) improved DMI, ADG and feed conversion efficiency, with yeast culture better than cellulolytic enzymes [14]. In grazing sheep fed LB containing fenbendazole, the egg count of worms in feces decreased by 98% on D 14 when compared with D 0 [15]. Junkuszew et al. [16] reported that both drenching de-wormer (containing albendazole) and feeding LB (containing essential oils from 10 plant species with anti-parasitic properties) effectively reduced coccidia in lambs. In Laos, where the administration of anthelmintics to buffalo is difficult due to a lack of restraint facilities, adding fenbendazole (NB17, Table 1) or triclabendazole to LB provided anthelmintic control of Toxocara vitulorum and Fasciola gigantica, which is particularly important for the smallholder [64,96]. It is worth noting, however, that in open pastures grazed by wildlife, LBs can transmit disease between grazing livestock and wildlife. Bovine tuberculosis is caused by Mycobacterium bovis, a bacterium belonging to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC). This disease can spread among livestock, humans and wildlife [97]. According to Kaneene et al. [17], MB inoculated with Mycobacterium bovis can survive up to 78 h in winter or in the shade. Although LB is less attractive to wildlife than domestic animals, the potential for interspecific transmission of MTC or other pathogens cannot be discarded [18]. Adjusting the feeding time and location of LB can reduce the number of wildlife visits to LB and reduce the risk of disease transmission [18].

7.4. Lick Blocks Can Modulate the Distribution of Grazing Livestock

When ruminants graze pastures, especially during the period of low-quality forage, they usually select areas close to a water source and gentle terrain. They tend to avoid areas far from a water source, rugged terrain and high elevations [98,99,100]. This results in the concentration of animals in certain areas, leading to localized over-grazing. The strategic placing of NBs can influence cattle grazing patterns [19]. Bailey et al. [20] compared the effects of strategically placed MB (salt content 99.9%) and NB and only MB (salt content 99.9%) on grazing distribution and diurnal behavior patterns of cows grazing foothill rangeland in northern Montana during autumn. When NB was available, cows used higher elevations and grazed further from water points than when only salt was provided. NB attracts cattle to under-utilized pasture, improves grazing uniformity and reduces grazing pressure in priority feeding areas.

8. Summary and Prospects

Dietary supplementation is an important aspect of livestock husbandry, as inadequate nutrients, minerals, vitamins and energy can reduce productivity. At present, there is a shortage of dietary resources, the price of feed ingredients is high, and the supply of animal products is in demand. The global COVID-19 epidemic has led to a more prominent shortage problem of forage. Supplementary LB has proven to be a low-cost, efficient and easy method to improve the feeding of ruminants and has broad development and application prospects. However, LB production should set standards and a quality evaluation system, which would lead to appropriate hardness and waterproofness. The aspects of LB that need research and improvement in the future include:
  • Introduction of a consistent naming system, production standards and quality evaluation system for LB;
  • Testing cost-effective alternative local feed resources to reduce production costs;
  • Improvement of the use of agro-industrial by-products to replace concentrates and reduce feed costs;
  • Use of LB as a carrier for novel additives to increase the application effect;
  • Use of LB in non-ruminant feeds to further expand the application scope.
Table
Table 3. Effects of lick blocks on production and reproductive performances of ruminants.
Table 3. Effects of lick blocks on production and reproductive performances of ruminants.
AnimalLBIntake (g/d)Productive PerformanceReproductive PerformanceOtherRef.
ADG (g/d) 1Increase (%) 2Milk Yield (kg/d) 3Increase (%) 4Other
1-yr-old yakNB3250.01.2 5102.5 6-----[2]
2-yr-old yak250.08.3 585.6 6-----
Yak cows500.07.8 595.1 60.216.3Improve cheese and butter productionImprove pregnancy and birth weight-
Yak calvesMB16.050.060.8----Increase content of minerals in serum; improve rumen fermentation[90]
Young yaksMB100.091.830.4-----[91]
Yak calves100.080.518.3ns 7ns---
Adult yaks100.0 nsnsns---
Tibetan sheepNB21.043.597.8--Improve nutrient intake and digestibility; increase content of growth hormone in serumIncrease content of reproductive hormone in serum; increase weight of uterus-ovary; promote follicular developmentImprove activity of digestive enzymes in rumen fluid; increase number of nutrient degrading bacteria; improve rumen fermentation; promote morphological development of rumen and small intestine and absorption capacity of nutrients[3]
Tibetan sheepMB13.1------Increase content of minerals in serum; enhance antioxidant capacity and immune capacity[101]
Beef cattleNB4-280.043.8--Increase body size index-Increase content of minerals in serum and hair[8]
Beef cattleNB-140.011.2 Improve DMI--[93]
MB-100.08.0-----
Dairy cowsNB5-nsns1.511.9Improve milk fat contentShorten calving interval-[7]
Dairy cowsMB44.3-----Improve frozen semen yield and quality-[102]
Lactating dairy cowsMB41.8--nsnsImprove milk quality; decrease average number of somatic cells in milk-Decrease the incidence of mastitis; increase centrations of vitamin E and selenium in milk and serum[47]
Pregnant dairy cows47.3-----Increase level of reproductive hormones in postpartum cow serum; shorten interval from delivery to first estrusDecrease incidence of postpartum diseases in cows and increase the contents of vitamin E and selenium in serum
BuffaloNB6230.0142.9100.02.227.0Improve DMI; Improve condition score [11]
2-yr-old ewesNB31.145.3859.0-----[92]
Pregnant ewes43.2-----Improve birth weight of lamb-
Young ewesMB212.34.5282.5-----[66]
Adult ewes14.6-----Improve birth weight, survival rate, number of weaned lambs and lambing rate of ewes-
SheepMB-31.932.8----Improve carcass and meat quality;[10]
SheepMB133.037.018.6--Decrease feed to meat ratio; increase water consumption-enhance antioxidant capacity; increase content of minerals in serum[65]
GoatsNB710.4–14.510.5–21.822.3–46.5--Improve DMI and digestibility-Improve wool condition[4]
GoatsNB816.017.531.6--Improve wool production-Improve wool condition[62]
Dairy goatsNB9-16.0–25.225.2–39.70.212.8–18.4Increase body size index-increase number of blood cells; increase content of minerals in whole blood[55]
GoatsMB-16.770.9--Decrease feed to meat ratioImprove semen yield and quality-[9]
Dairy goatsNB1083.9ns 7nsnsnsNo difference in nutrient intake and apparent digestibility, nitrogen and energy utilization and milk composition-No effect on rumen fermentation; Feeding cost reduced by 10.9%[13]
Dairy goatsNB1166.72.7 8245.5 9nsnsDecrease intake of concentrate; no difference in nutrient intake and milk composition, except EE--[12]
1,3 ADG or Milk yield = Trial − control; 2,4 Increase = (Trial − control)/control; 5, 6 total weight gain date; 7 Non-significant; 8,9 Decrease and decrease range of ADG, respectively, compared with control group.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z., A.D. and L.H.; methodology, X.Z.; validation, A.D. and L.H.; formal analysis, X.Z.; data curation, X.Z. and L.H.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.D. and L.H.; visualization X.Z.; supervision, L.H.; project administration, L.H. and S.L.; funding acquisition L.H. and S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Qinghai Province Key R&D and Transformation Program (2021-NK-126), Special Topics of the Second Comprehensive Scientific Expedition of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (2019QZKK0606), Qinghai Province Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science for Plateau Grazing Livestock (2022-ZJ-Y17) and Qinghai Province “Kunlun Talents · High-end Innovation and Entrepreneurial Talents” Top-notch Talent Project (2020).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Qunying Zhang from Lanzhou University for his helpful suggestions on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, T.T. Development of Palygorskite-Biomass Functionalized Nutrition Lick Block. Master’s Thesis, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, China, 2020. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  2. Dong, S.K.; Long, R.J.; Kang, M.Y.; Pu, X.P.; Guo, Y.J. Effect of Urea Multinutritional Molasses Block Supplementation on Liveweight Change of Yak Calves and Productive and Reproductive Performances of Yak Cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 83, 141–145. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jing, X.P. Effects of Supplementation on the Growth Performance and the Development of Gastrointestinal Tract and Reproductive Organ of Tibetan Sheep Ewes in Cold Season. Master’s Thesis, Sichuan Agricultural University, Yaan, China, 2016. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  4. Hu, H.P. Study on Formulas Technical Parameter and Feeding Effect of Molasses Multinutrient Block. Master’s Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, 2006. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  5. Singh, G.; Singh, R.; Singh, D. Effect of UMMB (Urea Molasses Mineral Block) supplementation on rumen profile in buffaloes. Webmed Cent. Vet. Med. 2013, 4, WMC004340. [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, C.Q.; Jin, H.; Xue, S.Y. Application of PCR-DGGE technique to analyze bacterial community structure in grazing sheep supplemented with molasses-urea lick blocks. Heilongjiang Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2015, 19, 112–115. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. Vu, D.D.; Cuong, L.X.; Dung, C.A.; Hai, P.H. Use of urea-molasses-multinutrient block and urea-treated rice straw for improving dairy cattle productivity in Vietnam. Prev. Vet. Med. 1999, 38, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Li, H.L. Study on Cattle Molasses Multinutrient Block and Feeding Effect. Master’s Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, 2008. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  9. Siswoyo, P.; Tafsin, M.; Handarini, R. Potential reproduction and response of selenium and zinc mineral supplementation on quality of goat samosir semen. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 122, 012126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, Z.G.; Wu, Y.; Wu, R.R.; Wu, P.; Peng, H.; Zhou, D.R.; Song, D.R. Effects of microelement licking brick on production, slaughter and meat quality performance of Guizhou semi-fine wool sheep after breeding. Heilongjiang Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2019, 22, 38–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  11. Bipate, M. Effect of urea molasses mineral block supplementation on milk production in Murrah buffalo under small holder’s production system. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 37, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Evan, T.; Carro, M.D.; Fernandez Yepes, J.E.; Haro, A.; Arbesu, L.; Romero-Huelva, M.; Molina-Alcaide, E. Effects of feeding multinutrient blocks including avocado pulp and peels to dairy goats on feed intake and milk yield and composition. Animals 2020, 10, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. De Evan, T.; Carro, M.D.; Fernandez Yepes, J.E.; Haro, A.; Arbesu, L.; Romero-Huelva, M.; Molina-Alcaide, E. Feeding mango wastes to dairy goats: Effects on diet digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and milk yield and composition. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2022, 286, 115252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Can, M.Y. Factors Influencing Qualitative Parameters of Urea-Molasses-Mineral Blocks and the Nutritional Evaluation of the Blocks Containing Yeast Culture or/and Cellulolytic Enzymes. Ph.D. Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China, 2004. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  15. Fishpool, F.J.; Kahn, L.P.; Tucker, D.J.; Nolan, J.V.; Leng, R.A. Voluntary intake of a medicated feed block by grazing sheep is increased by gastrointestinal nematode infection. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2012, 52, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Junkuszew, A.; Milerski, M.; Bojar, W.; Szczepaniak, K.; Scouarnec, J.L.; Tomczuk, K.; Dudko, P.; Studzinska, M.B.; Demkowska-Kutrzepa, M.; Bracik, K. Effect of various antiparasitic treatments on lamb growth and mortality. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 123, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kaneene, J.B.; Hattey, J.A.; Bolin, C.A.; Averill, J.; Miller, R. Survivability of Mycobacterium bovis on salt and salt-mineral blocks fed to cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2017, 78, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Martínez-Guijosa, J.; López-Alonso, A.; Gortázar, C.; Acevedo, P.; Torres, M.J.; Vicente, J. Shared use of mineral supplement in extensive farming and its potential for infection transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2021, 67, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bailey, D.W.; Welling, G.R.; Miller, E.T. Cattle use of foothills rangeland near dehydrated molasses supplement. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. J. Range Manag. Arch. 2001, 54, 338–347. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bailey, D.W.; VanWagoner, H.C.; Weinmeister, R.; Jensen, D. Comparison of low-moisture blocks and salt for manipulating grazing patterns of beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 1271–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sansoucy, R. New developments in the manufacture and utilization of multinutrient blocks. World Anim. Rev. 1995, 82, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ralph, C.; Hebart, M.; Cronin, G.M. Enrichment in the sucker and weaner phase altered the performance of pigs in three behavioural tests. Animals 2018, 8, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Maertens, L.; Buijs, S.; Davoust, C. Gnawing blocks as cage enrichment and dietary supplement for does and fatteners: Intake, performance and behaviour. World Rabbit Sci. 2013, 21, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Horne, T.M.; Drouillard, J.S.; Douthit, T.L.; Vahl, C.I.; Lattimer, J.M. Immunomodulation of supplemental omega-3 fatty acids in horses delivered via a commercially available molasses lick block. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 32–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mengistu, G.; Hassen, W. Review on: Supplementary feeding of urea molasses multi-nutrient blocks to ruminant animals for improving productivity. Int. J. Anim. Husb. Vet. Sci. 2017, 2, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  26. Simanungkalit, G.; Barwick, J.; Cowley, F.; Dobos, R.; Hegarty, R. A pilot study using accelerometers to characterise the licking behaviour of penned cattle at a mineral block supplement. Animals 2021, 11, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Insoongnern, H.; Srakaew, W.; Prapaiwong, T.; Suphrap, N.; Potirahong, S.; Wachirapakorn, C. Effect of mineral salt blocks containing sodium bicarbonate or selenium on ruminal pH, rumen fermentation and milk production and composition in crossbred dairy cows. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Helmer, L.G.; Bartley, E.E. Progress in the utilization of urea as a protein replacer for ruminants. A review. J. Dairy Sci. 1971, 54, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kertz, A.F. Urea feeding to dairy cattle: A historical perspective and review. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2010, 26, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tong, J.M.; Yao, H.L.; Zhang, J.M.; Feng, J.H.; Sa, R.N. Handbook of Feed Additives, 1st ed.; China Agricultural University Press: Beijing, China, 2001; p. 152. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  31. Patra, A.K. Urea/Ammonia metabolism in the rumen and toxicity in ruminants. In Rumen Microbiology: From Evolution to Revolution; Puniya, A.K., Singh, R., Kamra, D.N., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 329–341. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sweeny, J.P.A.; Surridge, V.; Humphry, P.S.; Pugh, H.; Mamo, K. Benefits of different urea supplementation methods on the production performances of merino sheep. Vet. J. 2014, 200, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Wongwungchun, W.; Yeekeng, S.; Niltho, T.; Rakwongrit, D.; Khota, W.; Khantharin, S.; Tangmutthapattharakun, G.; Phesatcha, K.; et al. Effect of feeding feed blocks containing different levels of urea calcium sulphate mixture on feed intake, digestibility and rumen fermentation in Thai native beef cattle fed on rice straw. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2014, 198, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M. In vitro gas production in rumen fluid of buffalo as affected by urea-calcium mixture in high-quality feed block. Anim. Sci. J. 2014, 85, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Medeiros, T.T.B.; De Azevedo Silva, A.M.; Da Silva, A.L.; Bezerra, L.R.; Da Silva Agostini, D.L.; De Oliveira, D.L.V.; Mazzetto, S.E.; Viana Kotzebue, L.R.; Oliveira, J.R.; Souto, G.S.B.; et al. Carnauba wax as a wall material for urea microencapsulation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1078–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mordenti, A.L.; Giaretta, E.; Campidonico, L.; Parazza, P.; Formigoni, A. A review regarding the use of molasses in animal nutrition. Animals 2021, 11, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Feedipedia. Feedipedia-Animal Feed Resources Information System-INRA CIRAD AFZ and FAO. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/561 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  38. Federatie Nederlandse Diervoederketen. CVB-Veevoedertabel 2021—Chemische Samenstelling en Nutritionele Waarden van Voedermiddelen; Federatie Nederlandse Diervoederketen: Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 190, 192, 194. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sansoucy, R.; Aarts, G.; Leng, R.A. Molasses-urea blocks as a multinutrient supplement for ruminants. In Sugarcane as Feed; Sansoucy, R., Aarts, G., Preston, T.R., Eds.; FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 72; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1988; pp. 263–279. [Google Scholar]
  40. El Hag, M.G.; Al-Merza, M.A.; Al Salti, B. Growth in the Sultanate of Oman of small ruminants given date byproducts-urea multinutrient blocks. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 15, 671–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ben Salem, H.; Znaidi, I.-A. Partial replacement of concentrate with tomato pulp and olive cake-based feed blocks as supplements for lambs fed wheat straw. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2008, 147, 206–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suttle, N.F. Mineral Nutrition of Livestock, 4th ed.; MPG Books Group: London, UK, 2010; pp. 2–3. [Google Scholar]
  43. Godara, R.S.; Naskar, S.; Das, B.C.; Godara, A.S.; Ghosh, M.K.; Mondal, M.; Bhat, S.A. Effect of area specific mineral supplementation on biochemical profile in female black Bengal goats. J. Anim. Res. 2015, 5, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fan, Q.S.; Wang, Z.F.; Chang, S.H.; Peng, Z.C.; Wanapat, M.; Bowatte, S.; Hou, F.J. Relationship of mineral elements in sheep grazing in the highland agro-ecosystem. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 33, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Arthington, J.D.; Pate, F.M.; Spears, J.W. Effect of copper source and level on performance and copper status of cattle consuming molasses-based supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 1357–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Krause, K.M.; Dhuyvetter, D.V.; Oetzel, G.R. Effect of a low-moisture buffer block on ruminal pH in lactating dairy cattle induced with subacute ruminal acidosis. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 352–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Wang, C.R. Effects of Vitamin E and Selenium on Holstein Cows and Neonatal Calves. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China, 2008. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  48. Kikelomo, A.M. Preliminary physico-chemical investigation of local binding agents in mineral salt licks production for ruminants. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotechnol. 2016, 1, 997–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pujaningsih, R.I.; Widiyanto; Tampoebolon, B.I.M. Effect of organic basic multrinutrient block supplementation on total mixed ratio of Kacang goat in feedlot system. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 372, 012062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cheng, W.; Sun, Y.; Fan, M.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Qian, H.F. Wheat bran, as the resource of dietary fiber: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 3, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Zhang, F. Effects of Mineral Trace Elements Nutrition Lick Brick on the Production Performance and Health in Dairy Cows. Master’s Thesis, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China, 2017. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  52. Tendonkeng, F.; Zogang, B.F.; Sawa, C.; Boukila, B.; Pamo, E.T. Inclusion of tithonia diversifolia in multinutrient blocks for west African dwarf goats fed brachiaria straw. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2014, 46, 981–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yao, Z.Q.; Liu, Z.M.; Wu, H.H.; Wang, Z.X. Effects on frost resistance of concrete mixed with ceramic polishing powder and mineral powder. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2022, 40, 150–156. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  54. Mubi, A.A.; Kibon, A.; Mohammed, I.D. Formulation and production of multinutrient blocks for ruminants in the Guinea savanna region of Nigeria. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 2013, 4, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xu, Y.J. Studies on the Effect of Two Multi-Nutrient Blocks on Milk Goats. Master’s Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, 2004. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  56. Asaolu, V.O. Development of moringa multi-nutrient block as a dry season feed supplement for ruminants. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2012, 24, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nadziakiewicza, M.; Kehoe, S.; Micek, P. Physico-chemical properties of clay minerals and their use as a health promoting feed additive. Animals 2019, 9, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Furtado, D.A.; Castro, T.B.D.S.; Neto, J.P.L.; Constantino, R.A.; Cunha, M.D.G.G.; Nascimento, J.W.B.D. Physical-mechanical properties of multinutrient blocks with different binders for goats and sheep intake. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. E Ambient. 2018, 22, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Du, C.Y.; Wang, P.L.; Du, J.L.; Zhu, H.Y.; Bao, L.; Guo, Y.R.; Zhang, N.M.; Pan, Y.H. Influence of fixed addition of biochar, zeolite and bentonite on growth and Cd, Pb, Zn uptake by maize. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2019, 28, 190–198. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  60. Young-Jik, K.; Woo-Whan, J.; Tae-Ho, C.; In-Hag, C. Growth performance, meat quality, and carcass characteristics in growing and fattening Hanwoo steers fed bentonite. Acta Scientiarum. Anim. Sci. 2017, 39, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Di Gregorio, M.C.; Neeff, D.V.d.; Jager, A.V.; Corassin, C.H.; Carão, Á.C.d.P.; Albuquerque, R.d.; Azevedo, A.C.d.; Oliveira, C.A.F. Mineral adsorbents for prevention of mycotoxins in animal feeds. Toxin Rev. 2014, 33, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dong, P.X.; Zhang, M.H.; Lei, X.Q.; Zhu, H.J.; Xue, R. Effect of supplementary feeding multi-nutrition lick block on production performance of young cashmere goats. China Feed 2002, 13, 10–11. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  63. Molina-Alcaide, E.; Morales-García, E.Y.; Martín-García, A.I.; Ben Salem, H.; Nefzaoui, A.; Sanz-Sampelayo, M.R. Effects of partial replacement of concentrate with feed blocks on nutrient utilization, microbial N flow, and milk yield and composition in goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2076–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Olmo, L.; Nampanya, S.; Nemanic, T.S.; Selwood, N.; Khounsy, S.; Young, J.R.; Thomson, P.C.; Bush, R.D.; Windsor, P.A. Can fenbendazole-medicated molasses blocks control Toxocara vitulorum in smallholder cattle and buffalo calves in developing countries? Studies from upland Lao PDR. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 2031–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xing, C. Study on the Development of Weather Resistant Mineral Block and Its Practical Application in Sheep. Master’s Thesis, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China, 2019. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu, F.Y. Studies on Trace Element Lick Block of Grazing Sheep and Feeding Effects. Master’s Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, 2008. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  67. Ranches, J.; De Oliveira, R.A.; Vedovatto, M.; Palmer, E.A.; Moriel, P.; Silva, L.D.; Zylberlicht, G.; Drouillard, J.S.; Arthington, J.D. Low moisture, cooked molasses blocks: A limited intake method for supplementing trace minerals to pre-weaned calves. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2021, 273, 114793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cherdthong, A.; Khonkhaeng, B.; Seankamsorn, A.; Supapong, C.; Wanapat, M.; Gunun, N.; Gunun, P.; Chanjula, P.; Polyorach, S. Effects of feeding fresh cassava root with high-sulfur feed block on feed utilization, rumen fermentation, and blood metabolites in Thai native cattle. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 1365–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Makkar, H.P.S. Feed supplementation block technology—Past, present and future. In Urea-Molasses Multinutrient Blocks: Simple and Effective Feed Supplement Technology for Ruminant Agriculture; Makkar, H.P.S., Sánchez, M., Speedy, A.W., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  70. Wang, Y.H.; Wu, M. Status quo of MMUB research and application in cattle and sheep. China Herbiv. Sci. 2011, 31, 44–47. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  71. Wang, S.Y.; Qi, Z.M.; Liu, Y.M.; Wang, H.; Chen, H.Q.; Li, S.K.; Liu, Z.Q. A Kind of Special Trace Element Lick Block for Calf and Preparation. Method. Patent CN103750053B, 8 April 2015. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  72. Peng, Z.L.; Chen, S.Y.; Gao, Y.H.; Bai, X.; Zeng, Y. Preparation Method of Special Lick Block for Adult Yak in Warm Season. CN108634111A, 12 October 2018. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  73. Wu, B.; Tan, Z.X.; Gao, B.; Li, D.C. A Fully Automatic Pig Lick Block Production System. CN212393809U, 26 January 2021. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  74. Sansoucy, R. The sahel: Manufacture of molasses-urea blocks. World Anim. Rev. 1986, 57, 40–48. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mutore, R.; Madzimure, J.; Mpofu, I.D.T.; Bangira, C. Binding efficacy of clay binders in optimized ash-based vitamin-mineral block licks for cattle. Res. Sq. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hadjipanayiotou, M.; Verhaeghe, L.; Allen, M.; Kronfoleh, A.E.R.; Al-Wadi, M.; Amin, M.; Naigm, T.; El-Said, H.; Al-Haress, A.K. Urea blocks. I. Methodology of block making and different formulae tested in Syria. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 1993, 5, 6–15. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wang, H.; Fu, M.Z.; Yi, L.S.; Deng, Y.F.; Yi, J.; Tang, H.; Xu, Z.C.; Gan, J. A Kind of Mineral Block for Cattle and Sheep and Its Preparation Method. CN102524607A, 4 July 2012. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  78. Callaghan, M.J.; Tomkins, N.W.; Hepworth, G.; Parker, A.J. The effect of molasses nitrate lick blocks on supplement intake, bodyweight, condition score, blood methaemoglobin concentration and herd scale methane emissions in Bos indicus cows grazing poor quality forage. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, 61, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Meng, Q.X.; Zhang, X.M.; Xiao, X.J.; Gao, W.; Xia, Z.G. Research on the screening of suitable formula of multinutrition lick block feed for cattle and sheep. Feed Ind. 2002, 1, 19–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  80. Adewumi, O. Physico-chemical properties and storability of urea molasses multi-nutrient feed block (UMMB) as dry season supplement for ruminants. J. Appl. Agric. Res. 2013, 5, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
  81. Marcos, C.N.; Carro, M.D.; Fernández-Yepes, J.E.; Arbesu, L.; Molina-Alcaide, E. Utilization of avocado and mango fruit wastes in multi-nutrient blocks for goats feeding: In vitro evaluation. Animals 2020, 10, 2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Imaz, J.A.; García, S.; González, L.A. Application of in-paddock technologies to monitor individual self-fed supplement intake and liveweight in beef cattle. Animals 2020, 10, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Arthington, J.D.; Ranches, J. Trace mineral nutrition of grazing beef cattle. Animals 2021, 11, 2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Chládek, G.; Zapletal, D. A free-choice intake of mineral blocks in beef cows during the grazing season and in winter. Livest. Sci. 2007, 106, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Aubel, N.A.; Jaeger, J.R.; Drouillard, J.S.; Schlegel, M.D.; Pacheco, L.A.; Linden, D.R.; Bolte, J.W.; Higgins, J.J.; Olson, K.C. Effects of mineral-supplement delivery system on frequency, duration, and timing of supplement use by beef cows grazing topographically rugged, native rangeland in the Kansas flint hills. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 3699–3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Moriel, P.; Artioli, L.F.A.; Piccolo, M.B.; Miranda, M.; Ranches, J.; Ferreira, V.S.M.; Antunes, L.Q.; Bega, A.M.; Miranda, V.F.B.; Vieira, J.F.R.L.; et al. Effects of low-moisture, sugarcane molasses-based block supplementation on growth, physiological parameters, and liver trace mineral status of growing beef heifers fed low-quality, warm-season forage. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2019, 3, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Hamilton, T.G.; Rusche, W.C.; Wright, C.L.; Walker, J.A.; Smith, Z.K. Evaluation of a low-moisture, molasses-based block containing organic sources of trace minerals and a saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation culture during the feedlot receiving phase on growth performance, efficiency of dietary net energy utilization, and liver trace mineral status in newly weaned steer calves. Ruminants 2021, 1, 137–146. [Google Scholar]
  88. Li, C.Q.; Jin, H.; Xue, S.Y.; Li, Z.B.; Tian, F.; Wang, L.; Guo, T.L.; Zhang, H.Y. Application of molasses urea lick block in ruminant production. Mod. Anim. Husb. 2015, 3, 6–7. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  89. Allen, M.S. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 3063–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Huang, W.Z.; Zhang, X.W.; Xia, H.Z.; Wan, L.; Zhang, B.; Feng, Y.Z.; Cui, Z.H. Effects of mineral salt brick supplement on body weight gain, rumen fermentation and serum mineral element contents of grazing yak calves in cold season. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 33, 6300–6308. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  91. Zeng, Y.; Peng, Z.L.; Chen, S.Y.; Guo, C.H.; Gao, Y.H.; Li, D. Effect of supplement of mineral block on growth preference and milk yield of grazing yak in warm season. Heilongjiang Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2018, 21, 149–153. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  92. Zhang, C.J.; Zhang, L.P. Influence of brick supplementation on Gansu alpine merino production performance. Pratacultural Sci. 2015, 32, 1496–1499. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  93. Sun, N.S.S.H.E. Effects of Supplementation of Nutrient Blocks on Rumen Fermentation, Blood Physiological and Biochemical Parameters, Production Performance and Meat Quality in Beef Cattle. Master’s Thesis, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China, 2015. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  94. Romero-Huelva, M.; Molina-Alcaide, E. Nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation, microbial nitrogen flow, microbial abundances, and methane emissions in goats fed diets including tomato and cucumber waste fruits. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 914–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Ainscough, R.J.; McGree, J.M.; Callaghan, M.J.; Speight, R.E. Effective incorporation of xylanase and phytase in lick blocks for grazing livestock. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 59, 1762–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Windsor, P.A.; Nampanya, S.; Kinnavong, B.; Phommasone, P.; Bush, R.D.; Khounsy, S. Do triclabendazole medicated molasses blocks have a role in control of Fasciola gigantica in smallholder cattle production in Lao PDR? Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 59, 787–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Payne, A.; Chappa, S.; Hars, J.; Dufour, B.; Gilot-Fromont, E. Wildlife visits to farm facilities assessed by camera traps in a bovine tuberculosis-infected area in France. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 62, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Roath, L.R.; Krueger, W.C. Cattle grazing and behavior on a forested range. J. Range Manag. 1982, 35, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bailey, D.W.; Stephenson, M.B.; Pittarello, M. Effect of terrain heterogeneity on feeding site selection and livestock movement patterns. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2015, 55, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Valentine, K.A. Distance from water as a factor in grazing capacity of rangeland. J. For. 1947, 45, 749–754. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wang, H.; Liu, Z.Q.; Huang, M.Z.; Wang, S.Y.; Cui, D.A.; Dong, S.W.; Li, S.K.; Qi, Z.M.; Liu, Y.M. Effects of long-term mineral block supplementation on antioxidants, immunity, and health of Tibetan sheep. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2016, 172, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wu, Y.H.; Liu, T.Y.; Ma, Y.B.; Yang, C.D.; Jiang, G.E.; Liu, X.H.; Shi, Z.F. Effect of supplementary feeding E100TZ lick block on semen quality of Holstein bulls. Heilongjiang Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2010, 2, 79–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 07620 g001 550
Figure 1. Action mechanisms of lick blocks as nutritional supplement.
Figure 1. Action mechanisms of lick blocks as nutritional supplement.
Sustainability 14 07620 g001
Table
Table 2. Methods of quality assessments of lick blocks.
Table 2. Methods of quality assessments of lick blocks.
No.ItemsAssessment MethodsRef.
1HardnessPressing by hand[48]
2Dent depth of LB after continuous impact of hardness tester[79]
3Hardness (kg/cm2) = Pressure/Indenter cross-sectional area [Equation (1)][54]
4Crushing strength (kg/cm2 or kN/mm2) = Crushing load/Bearing area [Equation (2)][1]
5DensityDensity (g/cm3) = Weight/Volume [Equation (3)][65]
6WaterproofnessDeliquescence (%) = (Weight before immersion in water—weight after immersion in water)/Weight before immersion in water [Equation (4)][75]
7Vertical insertion distance of iron wire after immersion in water[66]
8Phenotypic traitSurface roughness, crack size, color, smell[4]
9Chemical analysisContents of nutrients and anti-nutrients[80]
10In vitro rumen fermentationGas production parameters, fermentation parameters[81]
11Animal feeding studiesProductive performance, reproductive performanceTable 3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, X.; Degen, A.; Hao, L.; Liu, S. Ruminant Lick Blocks, Particularly in China: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137620

AMA Style

Zhao X, Degen A, Hao L, Liu S. Ruminant Lick Blocks, Particularly in China: A Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137620

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Xinsheng, Allan Degen, Lizhuang Hao, and Shujie Liu. 2022. "Ruminant Lick Blocks, Particularly in China: A Review" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137620

APA Style

Zhao, X., Degen, A., Hao, L., & Liu, S. (2022). Ruminant Lick Blocks, Particularly in China: A Review. Sustainability, 14(13), 7620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137620

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop