This study aimed to evaluate the nutritional value of complete fed based on corns stover and king grass on Holstein Friesians (HF) Dairy cattle. Twenty-one HF (2.5-3.5 years old, weighted 250-300 kg) was adapted for 2 weeks by feeding with experimental feed. The experimental feed was formulated into three combinations: T1 (70% corn stover+0% king grass+30% concentrate; T2 (35% corn stover+35% king grass+30 % concentrate; T3 (0% corn stover+70% king grass+30% concentrate. Fecal of HF was collected every day for ten weeks after adaptation. Dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber digestibility (ADFD), NH3 synthesis and efficiency of microbial protein synthesis were analyzed. The highest dry matter digestibility (DMD), organic matter digestibility (OMD), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), NH3 concentration and efficiency of microbial protein synthesis (ESPM) were found in T2 group (64.04%, 65.05%, 60.63%, 189.36 mg.L-1, and 24.10 gr N.kg-1. BOTR-1, respectively). While the highest ADF was found in the T3 group (56.37%). The study suggested that T2 group produce the highest nutritional value compared to other combinations. The high level of the protein content of corn stover was proven to increase microbial protein synthesis in the rumen.
Short Communication · Volume 55, Issue 2, 20 January 2023 · Open Access
Assessment of the Nutritive Value of Complete Feed Supplemented with Corn Stover and King Grass on Holstein Friesians Dairy Cattle
· ·
Affiliations & Notes ⌄
- 1Department of Animal Feed and Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Science, Sam Ratulangi University, Jl. Kampus Unsrat, Bahu, Manado, North Sulawesi 95115, Indonesia 2Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Manado State University, Jl. Raya Tondano, Koya, Tondano Sel., Minahasa, North Sulawesi 95618, Indonesia * Corresponding author: ronny.tuturoong@yahoo.com
Article Info ⌄
- Journal:
- Pakistan Journal of Zoology
- Published:
- 20 January 2023
From the article
- In conclusion, complete feed (concentrate) (30%) supplemented by corns stover (35%) and king grass (35%) has the highest nutritional value compared with other combinations.
- Furthermore, the high level of the protein content of corn stover was proven to increase microbial protein synthesis in the rumen.
Selected from the article's own text.
Abstract
Materials and methods
This study was conducted from November 2019 until January 2019 at the Regional Technical Implementation Unit (UPTD) Institute of Livestock and Seed Farming development in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Proximate analysis was performed in Animal Nutrition and Feeding Laboratory, Faculty of Animal Science, Sam Ratulangi University, while in vitro test was conducted in Animal Nutrition and Feeding Laboratory, Brawijaya University.
This research used a completely randomized design with three treatments and seven replications. Twenty-one adult females of HF aged 2.5-3.5 years old and weighing 250-300 kg were included in this study. HF cow was adapted for two weeks by feeding with experimental feed. HF cow was hosted in an individual tie-stall barn (2 x 2.5m) equipped with a feeding and drinking area. The experimental feed was formulated into three combinations: T1 (70% corn stover+0% king grass+30% concentrate; T2 (35% corn stover+35% king grass+30 % concentrate; T3 (0% corn stover+70% king grass+30% concentrate. The experimental feed ingredient are shown in Table I.
Table I. Ingredient of the experimental feed.
| Nutrition | Concentrate (%) | Corn stover (%) | King grass (%) |
| Dry matter | 87.93 | 19.73 | 20.30 |
| Organic matter | 78.82 | 12.06 | 10.92 |
| Protein | 16.65 | 10.90 | 9.52 |
| Crude fat | 10.75 | 2.17 | 3.14 |
| Crude fiber | 11.23 | 33.21 | 31.26 |
| NDF | 27.23 | 69.81 | 73.52 |
| ADF | 14.39 | 40.20 | 44.49 |
| Ca | 0.73 | 0.39 | 0.35 |
| P | 1.82 | 0.23 | 0.28 |
| Gross energy (Kkal) | 3708.89 | 3791.00 | 3375.00 |
Fecal of HF dairy cattle were collected from the rectum of each cow every day for 10 weeks after the adaptation period. Nutrient content of corn stover and king grass were evaluated using proximate analysis. Dry matter (DM) and organic matter (OM) digestibility were performed by in vitro analysis based on Al-Arif et al. (2017). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) digestibility were analyzed in-vitro using a daisy system as described by Nair et al. (2018). The concentration of N-NH3 was calculated using the Conway method , while the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis (ESPM) was measured according to Zinn and Owners (1995).
All obtained data were subjected to one-way ANOVA using SPSS software for Windows (IBM Corp., USA). Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test was performed where significant differences (p<0.05) detected.
Results and discussion
Dry matter (DM) and organic matter (OM) digestibility
The average DM digestibility of complete feed supplemented with corn stover, and king grass ranged from 60.25% - 64.04% (Table II). The highest DM digestibility was found in the T2 group (64.04%) and significantly different with T3 group but not significantly different with the T1 group (63.54%) (Table III). In the T2 group, a mixture of corn stover, king grass and concentrate resulted in more carbohydrate variations, both structural and non-structural, increasing the growth of more varied rumen microbes and then causing an increase of dry and organic matter. According to McDonald et al. (2002), a positive correlation effect of several feed sources combination could increase feed digestibility.
The average of OM digestibility varied among different treatment. The T2 group possessed the highest OM digestibility (65.05%), while the lowest was found in the T3 group (60.95%). This result has the same characteristic with DM digestibility, whereas the T2 group was significantly different from the T3 group and not substantially different from the T1 group. The high and low digestibility of OM depends on the high and low DM digestibility . Feed digestibility was fully affected by composition and the quality of feed ingredients.
Table II. Feeding digestibility and fermented product.
| Treatment | Parameter | |||||
| DMD (%) | OMD (%) | NDFD (%) | ADFD (%) | NH3 (mg/l) | ESPM (gr N/kg/BOTR) | |
| T1 | 63.54a | 64.55a | 58.54a | 54.24a | 187.98a | 24.06a |
| T2 | 64.04a | 65.05a | 60.63a | 55.18a | 189.36a | 24.10a |
| T3 | 60.25b | 60.95b | 50.69b | 56.37b | 176.67b | 20.92b |
T1 = 70% corn stover+30% concentrate; T2 = 35% corn stover+35% king grass+30 % concentrate; T3 = 0% corn stover+70% king grass+30% concentrate.
The high content of corn stover’s metabolic energy and crude fiber may be caused by the increase in feed digestibility . The high metabolic energy content of corn stover is due to a readily available carbohydrate (RAC) contained in corn stover ; . According to Tuturoong et al. (2013) the rate of rumen microbial synthesis is positively correlated with RAC. The more easily digested carbohydrates in the food consumed, the higher the rate of rumen microbial synthesis and, as a result, DM and OM digestibility will increase. Furthermore, crude protein content on the animal feed also affected the feed digestibility. McDonald et al. (2002) and Mayulu et al. (2013) stated that if the feed is low in protein content, the rumen ammonia concentration will be low so that rumen microbial growth will be slow. Consequently, the degradation of carbohydrates will be inhibited.
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) digestibility
The NDF and ADF digestibility average varied from 53.17%–60.63% and 54.24%-56.37%, respectively. The highest value of NDF and ADF digestibility was obtained by T2 (60.63 %) and T3 (56.37%), respectively, whereas the lowest NDFD and ADFD were obtained by T3 (53.37%) and T1 (54.24%), respectively. The results showed significant differences between T2 and T3 NDF groups and not significantly different between T3, T2 and T1 ADF groups. The high quality of corn stover nutrient compared to king grass, especially the OM, CP and energy content and the low NDF and ADF of corn stover, complementing nutrients from a combination of two different feed sources caused differences in the digestibility level of NDF. In comparison, the digestibility of ADF was not significantly different.
The digestibility level of NDF and ADF in the rumen was affected by the number of fibre-digesting microbial populations . Protein from the feed is not used directly by rumen microbes. Still, it is hydrolyzed by rumen microbes into amino acids and subsequently becomes ammonia as a nitrogen source for microbial growth .
NH3 concentration from the experimental feed (Table II) ranged from 176.67 – 189.36 mg/l. Based on diversity analysis, there was a significant difference in the concentration of NH3 (p<0.05). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between T2 and T3 group and not significantly (p>0.05) different between T2 and T1 groups. The total concentration of NH3 has met the requirement of microbes for maximum growth since the total concentration of NH3 needed by microbes to grow was 85–300mg/l . Rumen microbes need NH3 as a source of N for microbial growth, but because the needs exceed production, the excess will be absorbed through the rumen and transported to the liver to be converted to urea. Total concentration of NH3 varied from 176.67-189.36 mg/l. The highest concentration of NH3 was obtained by T2 (189.36 mg/l) followed by T1 (187.98 mg/l) and T3 (176.67 mg/l). The variations of NH3 concentrations in T1, T2 and T3 group was able to support the activity of rumen microorganisms in synthesizing proteins that are beneficial for ruminants.
The generated urea will be excreted in the urine, and some will re-enter the rumen through saliva. NH3 concentration was used to estimate protein degradation by rumen microbes. NH3 is an intermediate product in protein degradation by microbes and microbial protein synthesis. High and low concentrations of NH3 in the rumen indicated the quality of feed digestibility and rumen microbial activity.
The average microbial protein synthesis (ESPM) varied from 20.92-24.10 (g N/kg/BOTR). The highest ESPM was obtained by T2 (24.10 g N/kg/BOTR) followed by T1 (24.06 g N/kg/BOTR) and T3 (20.92 g N/kg/BOTR). The results showed a significant difference (p<0.05) between T2 and T3 and not a significantly (p>0.05) difference between T2 and T1.
ESPM value in our study was higher than reported by Wassie et al. (2019). Three factors affect microbial protein synthesis in the rumen: physical, chemical, and biological . The crucial physical factor affecting microbial protein synthesis is pH and the buffer system. Increasing rumen performance occurs when pH is above 6.0, whereas when rumen pH decreases below 6, a microbial enzyme in the rumen does not function, causing declining bacterial growth .
Nitrogen compounds, vitamins and minerals, antimicrobial chemicals, and feed type are the chemical factors affecting microbial protein synthesis in the rumen . Furthermore, bacteriophage found in the rumen, bacterial lysis, and protozoa predation includes biological factors affecting the level of microbial protein synthesis. Understanding the effect of each factor and how to solve them is the crucial thing that we have to improve when we want to increase the digestibility of protein and microbial protein synthesis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, complete feed (concentrate) (30%) supplemented by corns stover (35%) and king grass (35%) has the highest nutritional value compared with other combinations. High nutritional value in this study correlated with the proximate value of each corn stover and king grass. Furthermore, the high level of the protein content of corn stover was proven to increase microbial protein synthesis in the rumen.
Acknowledgment
We thank the Ministry of Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for facilitating this research.
Statement of conflict of interests
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
- Al-Arif, M.A., Suwanti, L.T., Estoepangestie, A.T.S. and Lamid, M., 2017. KnE Life Sci., 3: 338-343. https://doi.org/10.18502/kls.v3i6.1142[CrossRef]
- Croce, S., Wei, Q., D’Imporzano, G., Dong, R. and Fabrizio, A., 2016. Biotechnol. Adv., 34: 1289-1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.09.004[CrossRef]
- de Souza, R.A., Tempelman, R.J., Allen, M.S., Weiss, W.P., Bernard, J.K. and VandeHaar, M.J., 2018. J. Dairy Sci., 101: 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13344[CrossRef]
- Ferraretto, L.F., Shaver, R.D. and Luck, B.D., 2018. J. Dairy Sci., 101: 3937–3951. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13728[CrossRef]
- Garlock, R.J., Chundawat, S.P., Balan, V. and Dale, B.E., 2009. Biotechnol. Biofuels, 2: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-2-29[CrossRef]
- Harun, A.Y., and Sali, K., 2019. Vet. Med., 4: 27-35. https://doi.org/10.17140/VMOJ-4-133[CrossRef]
- Huang, H., Wang, Z., Pan, S-C., Shoup, L.M., Felix, T.L., Perkins, J.B., May, O. and Singh, V., 2017. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng., 60: 973-979. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12042[CrossRef]
- Iskenderov, T.B. and Mamedova, K.Q., 2013. J. Fac. Vet. Med. Istanbul Univ., 39: 131-135.
- Jabari, S., Eslami, M., Chaji, M., Mohammadabadi, T. and Bojarpour, M., 2014. Vet. Res. Forum, 5: 295–300.
- Kabirizi, J.M., Bareeba, F.B., Sabiiti, E.N., Ebong, C., Namagembe, A. and Kigongo, J., 2000. Uganda J. agric. Sci., 5: 9-15.
- Kariuki, J.N., Tamminga, S., Gachuiri, C.K., Gitau, G.K. and Muia, J.M.K., 2001. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 31: 149-157. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v31i3.3798[CrossRef]
- Katuromunda, S., Sabiiti, E.N. and Bekunda, A.M., 2012. Uganda J. agric. Sci., 13: 25-34.
- Li, H.Y., Xu, L., Liu, W.J., Fang, M.Q. and Wang, N., 2014. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 27: 194-200. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13446[CrossRef]
- Mayulu, H., Sunarso, S., Christiyanto, M. and Ballo, F., 2013. Int. J. Sci. Eng., 4: 86-91. https://doi.org/10.12777/ijse.4.2.86-91[CrossRef]
- McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A. and Greenhalgh, J.F.D., 2002. Animal nutrition. 6th Edition. Longman, London and New York.
- Nair, J., Beattie, A.D., Christensen, D., Yu, P., McAllister, T., Damiran, D. and McKinnon, J.J., 2018. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 98: 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2017-0060[CrossRef]
- Sanh, M.V., Wiktorsson, H. and Ly, L.V., 2002. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 15: 650-664. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.650[CrossRef]
- Sari, I.P., Nuswantara, L.K. and Achmadi, J., 2019. J. Sain Peternakan Indones., 14: 161-170. https://doi.org/10.31186/jspi.id.14.2.161-170[CrossRef]
- Tahuk, P.K., Budhi, S.P.S., Panjono, P., Nagiyono, N., Utomo, R., Noviandi, C.T. and Baliarti, E., 2017. Asian J. Anim. Sci., 11: 65-73. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajas.2017.65.73[CrossRef]
- Tuturoong, R.A.V., Soebarinoto, S., Hartutik, H. and Kaunang, C., 2013. Sci. Papers. Ser. D. Anim. Sci., 64: 117-121.
- Tuturoong, R.A.V., 2014. Evaluasi nilai nutrisi rumput benggala teramoniasi dan ampas sagu terfermentasi dalam pakan komplit terhadap penampilan kambing kacang (Evaluation of the nutritional value of ammonified bengal grass and fermented sago dregs in complete feeds on the appearance of peanut goats) PhD thesis, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia.
- Wassie, S.E., Ali, A., Korir, D., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Goopy, J., Merbold, L., Schlecht, E. and Dickhoefer, U., 2019. Arch. Anim. Nutr., 73: 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2019.1572343[CrossRef]
- Yang, N., Yu, H., Xu, D-Y., Conway, W., Maeder, M. and Feron, P., 2014. Eng. Proc., 63: 773-780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.086[CrossRef]
- Zinn, R.A. and Owens, F.V., 1995. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 66: 157-166. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas86-017[CrossRef]
Cited by 1 article
In journals published by ResearchersLinks.
Services
Article usage statistics
Loading…