Published date: Dec 03 2017

Journal Title: KnE Life Sciences

Issue title: The Veterinary Medicine International Conference (VMIC)

Pages: 338-343

DOI: 10.18502/kls.v3i6.1142

M. Anam Al-Arifa6alarif81@gmail.comAnimal Husbandry Department, Veterinary Medicine Faculty, Airlangga University

Lucia Tri SuwantiVeterinary Parasitology Department, Veterinary Medicine Faculty, Airlangga University

AT Soelih EstoepangestieVeterinary Public Health Department, Veterinary Medicine Faculty, Airlangga University

Mirni LamidAnimal Husbandry Department, Veterinary Medicine Faculty, Airlangga University

In Indonesia, forage is difficult to obtain in the dry season, while the agricultural waste very abundant and potentially pollute the environment. Use of agricultural waste as feed animal is very advantage to obtain cattle nutrients need and alleviate pollution. An experiment was conducted to evaluate the nutrient quality of fermented complete feed based on soybean straw (CFS), compared with forage (F) or forage and concentrate with 4:1 ratio (FC). Proximate analysis was conducted to three kind of feed, then nutrients digestibility were conducted by in-vitro analyzed. Each kind of feed consisted of 4 replicates. The results showed that CFS had higher ash and crude protein content and less crude fiber than FS and F. CFS had dry matter digestibility (DMD), organic matter digestibility (OMD) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) significantly (p< 0.05) higher than F but not significantly different with FC. There are not significantly different of NH3 production among the three kinds of feed. The conclusion was CFS had highest nutrient content. CFS and FC had digestible nutrient that higher than F. The quality of CFS can still be improved by adding N digestible for rumen microbe growth.

Key words: complete feed, soybean straw, nutrient digestibility

[1]. Blackwood I. 2007. Full hand feeding of beef cattle management. Primefact 339. www.dpi.nsw. gov.au./primefacts. Download: 29th October 2014.
[2]. Broderick GA and Kang JH. 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J. Dairy Sci. 63:64.
[3]. El-Shemy HA. 2011. Soybean and Nutrition. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia.
[4]. ECAN. 1986. Laboratory evaluation of farm grown forage. Expert Committee on Animal Nutrition In: Proc. Third ECAN Workshop. Winnipeg, Man., Agriculture Canada: 24–27.
[5]. Fuller MF, Benevenga NJ, Lall SP, McCracken KJ, Omed HM, Axford RFE and Philips CJC. 2004. The Encyclopedia of Farm Animal nutrition. CABI Publ. Oxon. UK
[6]. Galyean ML. 1980. Laboratory Procedures in Animals Nutrition Research. Department of Animal and Food Sciences. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
[7]. Hughes MP, Jennings PGA, Mlambo V and Lallo CHO. 2012. Effect of season and harvesting method on chemical composition, predicted metabolizable energy and in vitro organic matter digestibility of rotationally grazed tropical pastures. Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research. 1(5): 405-417.
[8]. Jacobs J and Hargreaves A. 2002. Feeding Dairy Cows. A Manual for Use in The Target 10 Nutrition Program. 3rd ed. Department of Natural Resource and Environment. Melbourne, Australia.
[9]. Republika. 2014. Government investigate the deaths of hundreds of cattle. Tuesday, 28th October 2014.
[10]. Sruamsiri S and Silman P. 2008. Nutritive composition of soybean by-products and nutrient digestibility of soybean pod husk. Maejo International J. of Science and Technology, 2(3): 568-576.
[11].Tilley JMA and Terry RA. 1963. A two stage technique for the in-vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18: 104-111.
[12]. Wanapat M and Pimpa O. 1999. Effect of ruminal NH3-N levels on ruminal fermentation, purine derivates, digestibility and rice straw intake in swamp buffaloes. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 12(6): 904-907.