Research Article

 

The Potential of Swamp Forage-Based Feeding to on the Qualities of Digestibility and Milk Production in Goat Etawa Crossbreed

 

Achmad Jaelani1*, Abd Malik1, Ni’mah Gk2

1Department of Animal Husbandry. Faculty of Agriculture. Islamic University of Kalimantan.Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari. Banjarmasin. South Kalimantan. Indonesia; 2Department of Agribusiness. Faculty of Agriculture. Islamic University of Kalimantan, Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari. Banjarmasin. South Kalimantan. Indonesia.

 

Received | January 21, 2021; Accepted | January 26, 2021; Published | February 20, 2021

*Correspondence | Achmad Jaelani, Department of Animal Husbandry. Faculty of Agriculture. Islamic University of Kalimantan.Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari. Banjarmasin. South Kalimantan. Indonesia; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Jaelani A, Malik A, Gk N (2021). The potential of swamp forage-based feeding to on the qualities of digestibility and milk production in goat etawa crossbreed. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 9(4): 544-548.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2021/9.4.544.548

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright © 2021 Jaelani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Efforts to utilize local forages are caried out to optimize and improve the efficiency of local animal feed. Swamp forage is abundant local feed but is not famously used as feed material for goats. The variety of swamp forage in South Kalimantan has more than 11 species of forage consists of Belaran, Babatungan, Bundungan, Beberasan, Kumpai Batu, Kumpai Juluk, Kumpai, Kumpai Minyak, Kayamahan, Kasisap, Pipisangan. The other swamp forages were Purun Tikus and Kalakai (Jaelani et al., 2018). Fahriyani and Eviyati (2008) reported that with a harvest system on average 2-3 times a week, dry swamp forage produces 44 tonnes/ha/year products. Furthermore, Fahriyani and Eviyati (2008) revealed that the botanical composition in the swamp consists of 70.95% of Poaceae biomass production, 28.81% of Cyperaceae biomass production, and 2.34% of other biomass production.

 

Swamp forage may have the potential as animal feed, although not all swamp forage is favored by livestock. Goats will choose what they like and are not poisonous. The combination of swamp grass and legumes that have a high percentage of crude protein is recommended because the protein percentages of tropical swamp grass are 4-9% (Jaelani et al., 2018). Whilst goat ration protein requirements reach 14-16% (NRC, 2007). One of the weaknesses of the swamp grass is a low content of protein. Nevertheless, the tannin content in swamp forage is quite large. This tannin can protect the protein from the rumen, reticulum, and omasum so that when the feed enters the abomasum little is damaged (Frutos et al., 2004). Besides, Jones et al. (1994) revealed that the function of tannin also acts as an anthelmintic.

 

There are several methods of feeding to goats, one of method are in fresh condition. This method has a bulky capacity and not efficient, because livestock will choose their preferences such as shoots, leaves, and soft stems, consequently the nutritional needs have not been met so that it needs to be given additional feed in the form of concentrate. Based on this phenomenon, the complete feeding of concentrate is the right solution. The form of complete feed can be made from crumbles, pellets, hay cube, food paste, large-diameter hay cylinders, but these forms are hardly affecting feed quality, palatability, storage time, digestibility, and biological value. The livestock feed quality is based on biological, chemical, and physical properties. The feed quality essentially looked at its chemical and biological properties so that the optimum digestibility of feed and feed integrity can be determined, thus the nutritional quality of feed is maintained (Aharoni et al., 1998)

 

The physical properties of feed Concentrates can act as a source of soluble carbohydrates, a source of glucose for raw materials for milk production, and as a source of protein escape degradation. When associated with the presence of tannin content in the feed, the smaller the particle size of the feed, the tannin pleased will be even greater because the surface area that is filled with tannin will be much greater than that of coarse feed. Based on these descriptions, the objective of this research was to evaluate if the potential of swamp forage on based feeding toward the qualities of milk production in goat etawa crossbreed.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

The research was organized on the Laboratory of  Nutrition and Feed Technology at Islamic University of Kalimantan MAB Banjarmasin. A total of 24 female goats aged 2-2.5 years, weigh about 35±2.15 kg, and all samples lactation status was divided into four groups consists of six goats per group. The standard feeding without swamp forages (Heleocharis dulcis Burm and Stenochlaena palustris) (0% tannin), was given to group P0, the standard feeding with 10% swamp forage (0.28% tannin) was given to group P1, the standard feeding with 15% swamp forage (2.04% tannin), was given to P2, and The standard feeding with 20% swamp forage (3.17% tannin) was given to group P3. The study was designed following feed standards from the National Research Council (NRC, 2007). All goats are fed according to swamp forage treatment. except for control treatment, all goats were given Purun Tikus (Heleocharis dulcis Burm) and Kalakai (Stenochlaena palustris) and given concentrate. All goats were raised under a similar cut and carry system on the swamp forage variety and supplemented with concentrate which was given 1 kg head-1.day-1

 

The study was conducted for 28 days and the adjustment period was 7 days. On day 8, Sample feces and milk was started collected. The collection of fecal samples was carried out every day in the morning, while the milking was done every day twice in the morning and evening. Feces are taken 20% of the total feces, then dried, grounded, and mixed until uniform. According to AOAC (2005), feed and fecal samples are analyzed to determine dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), tannin content, extract ether (EE), and ash. The method of Van Soest et al. (1994) was used to evaluate the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of feed and feces. The consumption of dry matter (feed intake) was evaluated according to Malik et al. (2019). Besides, the content of dry matter and organic matter in the ingredients is analyzed. Analyze goat milk samples to determine milk yield, specific gravity, fat content, protein content, Salmonella aureus content, and total plate count (TPC) were adopted from Sukmawati (2018).

 

Statistical analysis

Bartlett’s test is used to check its data adherence. The homogeneous data was reviewed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). A significant difference in treatment continued by using Duncan Multi Range Test (Steel and Torrie, 1993). The difference in treatment is rated as significant if p<0.05.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

The results of the study about the consumption of dry matter, digestibility of dry matter, digestibility of organic, digestibility of protein, digestibility of fiber, and total digestible were shown in Table 1. The average consumption of dry matter was significantly different (P<0.05) between group P3 and other groups. Whereas, the average percentages of digestibility of dry matter were significantly different (P<0.05) between group P2 and other groups. The percentages of the digestibility of organic were significant

 

Table 1: Consumption of dry matter, and some of the value of digestability in Goats ettawa crossbreed

 

Parameters		Treatments
	P0		P1	P2	P3
consumption of dry matter (g/head/d)	486±12,31a		428±13,41a	536±11,67b	476±12,33a
Digestibility of dry matter (%)	72,41±0,02ab		70,12±0,03a	74,65±0,02b	74,19±0,03b
Digestibility of organic matter (%)	72,37±1,47b		68,18±1,23a	73,08±1,67b	74,85±1,28b
Digestibility of crude protein (%)	68,52±3,38a		67,33±2,6a	68,16±3,14a	69,62±3,27b
Digestibility of crude fiber (%)	65,32±1,4a		67,14±1,5b	69,21±2,2c	65,58±1,3a
Total digestible nutrient (TDN) (%)	78,61±1,25b		76,12±0,82a	79,37±1,04b	78,62±0,93b

A,b Values in the same column with different superscripts indicate significant difference at P<0.05,

 

Table 2: Production and quality of goat milk etawa crossbreed given the treatment of adding swamp forage

 

Parameter	Treatments
	P0	P1	P2	P3
Milk Production (g.head-1d-1)	586±2.4ab	531±2,6a	645±1,8b	637±2,2b
Specivic Gravity (g/cm3)	1,070±0,002a	1,050±0,002a	1,090±0,001b	1,060±0,002a
Crude fat (%)	4,84±0,43a	4,69±0,43a	5,62±0,37b	5,24±0,74b
Crude Protein (%)	4,62±0,1a	4,44±0,1a	6,17±0,2b	7,20±0,2b
Salmonella aureus (CFU.g-1)	< 1,0 x 100	< 1,0 x 100	< 1,0 x 100	< 1,0 x 100
Total Plate Count (CFU.g-1)	5,3 x 100 a	9,0 x 100 a	2,9 x 103 b	3,8 x 104 c

a,b,c Values in the same column with different superscripts indicate significant difference at P<0.05,

 

ly different (P<0.05) between group P2 and other groups. The percentages of digestibility of protein were significantly different (P<0.05) between group P4 and other groups. Then, percentages of digestibility of fiber were significantly different (P<0.05) between group P4 and group P2 and P3, whereas, was significantly different (P<0.05) between group P1 and group P4. The total digestible was significantly different (P<0.05) between group P2 and other groups.

 

The others parameters of this research were milk qualities including milk production, specific gravity, contain crude fat, crude protein, total plate counts, and contain Salmonella aureus. The average milk production between the P0 group and other groups showed a significant difference (p<0.05). Considering that the average proportion between the P2 group and other groups is significantly different (p <0.05). Also, the average percentages of crude fat and crude protein between the P0, P1 group, and the P2, P3 group were significantly different (p <0.05), while the total plate number between the P2 group and the other groups was significantly different (p <0.05) see Table 2.

 

Based on statistical analysis showed that the average consumption of dry matter, digestibility of dry matter, fiber digestibility, and total digestible nutrients occurred in group P2 (Table 1). This shows that the trend in the provision of swamp forage at the level of 15% containing 3.17% tannin has an optimal effect when compared to group P3. The research results were supported by Frutos et al. (2004), who pointed out that the provision of forage with high tannins will affect the palatability of the feed, the slowdown of digestion, and the development of conditioned aversion. A decrease in palatability may be due to a reaction among tannins and the salivary mucoproteins, or a direct reaction with tastebuds because most swamp forages are high in tannins and protein, found in its saliva (McLeod, 1974; Robbins et al., 1987; Austin et al., 1989; McArthur et al., 1995; Foley et al., 1999). Furthermore, Van Soest (1994) and Frutos et al. (2004) reported that tannins usually have more negative effects on animal digestion, or they cannot be degraded by digestive enzymes.

 

On the other hand, the results of this research about the digestibility of protein were slightly higher in group 4 compared to other groups. This indicated that higher tannin contents in this group (4.21 ml/100mL) would affect the digestibility. Furthermore, many researchers report that the reduction in digestion rate is related to the degradation of tannins, which is the devaluation of the degradable part and the reduction in degradation rate (Aharoni et al. (1998); Bhatta et al. (2012); Frutos et al. (2000); Hervás et al., 2000). Makkar (2003), Jayanegara and Palupi (2010), Mueller and McAllan (1992) revealed that the reduction of rumen protein degradation may be the most important.

 

Another parameter of this study was to assess the quality of milk production in crossbreed etawa goats. Based on the data statistics, milk production, crude fat, specific gravity, and total plate count in group 3 were showed higher than the other group. This is because the provision of swamp forage at 15% (3.17 of tannins) turns out to have a good impact on milk quality, and total milk production and contained of fat. The results of these studies were still unclear about the physiological mechanism. It is suspected that 15% of the administration still has a positive impact on milk production and its quality. At doses above 15%, it has a negative impact (Table 2), this is in accordance with the viewpoint of Jones et al. (1994), Nsahlai et al. (1995), and Makkar (2003) have observed and suggested that the addition of a feed formula with a high tannin content based on fiber will reduce microbial activity in the rumen. Furthermore, Stevenson et al. (2010), Ramadhan et al. (2013), and Alam et al. (2007) pointed out that if the tannin content is high, these compounds can form reversible complexes with dietary nutrients. These nutrients include physical carbohydrate polymers, proteins, and minerals located in plant cell walls (Ahnert et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2005; Min et al., 2003). This can limit their degradation and absorption.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the results of these studies, it can be concluded that use swamp forage has the potential as an alternative feed for etawa cross-breed goats, while the use of swamp forage is suggested to range from 15%.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

Directorate of Research and Community Service of the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia has fully funded this research.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

All researchers stated consciously that they had no conflict of interest in this study.

 

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION

 

Achmad Jaelani has compiled the experimental design, Abd Malik coordinated the feeding trial research, and Gt Ni’ mah has collected data and performed the statistical analysis.

 

REFERENCES

 

• Aharoni Y, Gilboa N, Silanikove N (1998). Models of the suppressive effect of tannins. Analysis of the suppressive effect of tannins on ruminant degradation through compartmental models. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 71: 251-267 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00147-8

• Ahnert S, Dickhoefer U, Susenbeth A, Schulz F (2015). Influence of ruminant Queb-racho tannin extract infusion on apparent nutrient digestibility, nitrogen balances, and urinary purine derivatives excretion in heifers. Livest. Res. Rural Develop. 177: 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.04.004

• Alam MR, Amin MR, A.K.M.A. Kabir, Moniruzzaman M, Mcneill DM (2007). Effects of tannins in Acacia nilotica, Albizia procera, and Sesbania aculeate foliage determined in vitro, in Sacco, and in vivo. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 220-228. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.220

• Austin PJ, Suchar LA, Robbins CT, Hagerman AE (1989). Tannins-binding proteins in the saliva of deer and their absence in the saliva of sheep and cattle. J. Chem. Ecol. 15: 1335-1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01014834

• AOAC (2005). Official Methods of Analyses (17th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.

• Badjoeri M, Lukman (2002). Utilization of Kumpai plants from Semayang lake as cow feed. J. Tropic Anim. Agric. 27 (2): 125-133.

• Bhatta R, Saravanan M, Baruah L, Sampath KT (2012). Nutrient of content, in vitro ruminal fermentation characteristics, and methane reduction potential of tropical tannin-containing leaves. J. Sci. Food Agric. 92:2929-2935. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.5703

• Ramadhan BG, Suprayogi TH, Sustiyah A (2013). The Appearance of Milk Production And Fat Content of Goat Milk Peranakan Ettawa Due to Feeding With Different Forage Balances And Concentrates. Anim. Agric. J. 2(1): 353 – 361.

• Fahriani A, Eviyati (2008). Potential of swamp grass as ruminant feed: production, capacity, and fiber fraction content.  J. Indonesia Trop. Anim. Agric. No 33 (4).

• Foley WJ, Iason GR, McArthur C (1999). Role of secondary metabolite in the nutritional ecology of Mammalia herbivore: how far have we come in 25 years? In: Nutritional ecology of herbivores (Jung H.J.G. and Fahey G.C.Jr., eds.). American Societ. Anim. Sci. Illinois (USA), pp. 130-209.

• Frutos P, Hervás G, Giráldez FJ, Fernández M, Mantecón AR (2000). Digestive utilization of quebracho-treated soya bean meal in sheep. J. Agr. Sci. 134: 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859699007261

• Frutos P, Hervás G, Giráldez FJ, Mantecón AR (2004). Review: Tannins and ruminant nutrition. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2(2): 191-202. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2004022-73

• Hagerman, AE (2002). Tannin Handbook, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University.

• Hervás G, Frutos P, Serrano E, Mantecóna R, Giráldez FJ (2000). Effect of tannic acid on rumen degradation and intestinal digestion of treated soyabean meals in sheep. J. Agr. Sci. 135: 305-310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859699008151

• Jaelani A, Malik A, Ni’mah GK, Djaya MS (2018). The Physical Complete Feed of Modified Granules Made From Legumes and Swamp Forage For Goat Feed. The 1st International Conference Food Agric. Nusa Dua Bali

• Jayanegara A, Palupi E (2010). Condensed tannin effects on nitrogen digestion in ruminants: a meta-analysis from in vitro and in vivo studies. Med. Pet. 33:176-181. https://doi.org/10.5398/medpet.2010.33.3.176

• Jones GA, McAllister TA, Muir AD, Cheng KJ (1994). Effects of sain-foin (Onobrychis viciifolia scop) condensed tannins on growth and proteolysis by four strains of ruminal bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60: 1374-1378. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.60.4.1374-1378.1994

• McArthur C, Beal AM, Sanson GD (1995). Salivary proline-rich proteins in mammals: roles in oral homeostasis and counter-acting dietary tannin. J. Chem. Ecol. 21: 663-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02033455

• Makkar HPS (2003). Effects and fate of tannins in ruminants, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tanning rich feeds. Small Rumin. Res. 49: 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00142-1

• Malik A, Gunawan A, Erlina S, Widaningsih, Rizkie E (2019). Effect of Moringa oleifera (moringa) supplementation via urea molasses multi-nutrient moringa block (UM3B) on nutrient intake and utilization in Bali cattle. J. Anim. Health Prod. 7(2): 70-74. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2019/7.2.70.74

• McLeod M.N (1974). Plant tannins - Their role in forage quality. Nutr. Abst. Rev. 44: 803-812.

• Min BR, Attwood GT, McNabb WC, Barry TN (2003). The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 106: 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00041-5

• Mueller-Harvey, AB McAllan (1992). Tannins: their biochemistry and nutritional properties. Advances in plant cell biochemistry and biotechnology. JAI Press Ltd. London, 1:151-217.

• NRC (2007). Nutrient requirements of small ruminants. Sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids. Animal Nutrition series. National Research Council. of The National Academies, Washington, DC.

• Nsahlai IV, Osuji PO, Umunna NN (1995). The degradability by sheep of fruits of acacia and leaves of sesbania sesban and the effect of supplementation with mixtures of browses and oilseed cake on the utilization of teff (Eragrostis tef) straw. Anim. Sci. 61: 539-544. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800014119

• Robbins CT, Hanley TA, Hagerman AE, Hjeljord O, Baker DL, Schartz CC, Mautz WW (1987). Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in protein availability. Ecology. 68: 98-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938809

• Smith AH, Mackie RI, Zoetendal E (2005). Bacterial mechanisms to overcome the inhibitory effects of dietary tannins. Microbiol. Ecol. 50: 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-004-0180-x

• Stevenson PC, Nyirenda SP, Veitch NC (2010). Flavonoid pentaglycosides from Bobgunnia madagascariensis. Tetrahedron Lett. 51: 4727-4730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetlet.2010.07.013

• Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1993). Statistical Principles and Procedures 2nd Ed. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.

• Sukmawati. (2018). Total Microbial Plates on Beef and Beef Offal. Bioscience, 2(1): 22–28. https://doi.org/10.24036/02018219825-0-00

• Van Soest, Peter J (1994). Nutritional Ecology of The Ruminant second edition. Cornell University Press. London. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501732355