Use of Agriculture Byproduct and Swamp Grass as Matterial for Ammoniation of Total Mixed Fiber in Ration on Ballinese Cattle Performance

This study was design to evaluated about the using of total mixed fiber ammoniation (TMFA) in ration on Ballinese beef performance. This study used an experimental method with Completely Randomized Design (CRD) consisting of 4 types of treatmentt ration based on TMFA usage level and 3 replications. The treatmentts were R1 = 60% native grass (Control), R2 = 20% TMFA + 40% native grass, R3 = 40% TMFA + 20% native grass, R4 = 60% TMFA. The ration is added with a 40% concentrate to obtain 100% ration. The comparison between forage and concentrate is 60:40. Parameters measured in vivo are performance (ration intake, dry matter intake, crude protein intake, daily body weight gain and ration efficiency). The results showed that treatmentt significantly influenced (P <0.05) on ration intake, dry matter intake, daily body weight gain and ration efficiency, but the treatmentt unsignificantly influenced (P>0.05) on crude protein intake. It can be concluded that the use of 60% TMF ammoniation in the ration shows the best result, that is ration intake 6.89 kg/head/day, dry matter intake 6.25 kg / head / day, daily weight gain 0.47 kg / head / day and efficiency of ration 7.42%.


INTRODUCTION
Fiber in ruminants feed plays an important role as the largest source of energy both for the growth of livestock and rumen microbes. Feed with fiber sources in ruminant rations is not only a source of energy but also a source to produce methane gas. In ruminants, such as cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats, feed with fiber sources will be fermented by rumen microbes to produce volatile fatty acids, carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen (H2) and microbial mass (Vlaming 2008).
Source fiber for ruminant could be from forage, agriculture waste and swamp grass. agriculture waste and swamp grass as feed matter for ruminant animal is used for replace forage or inconvensional feed. Combination of several agriculture waste and swamp grass with fiber and nutrient value different is called Total Mixed Fiber (TMF). Composition TMF from agriculture byproduct such as corn cobs, corn brands, rice straw and pineapple plantation waste significantly increased milk production but not significantly influence composition of milk on dairy cattle (Maneerat et al., 2013). Based on previous research,the use of TMF from agricultural waste in the form of oil palm frond, rice straw and swamp grass (kumpai tembaga) with composition of 20% oil palm fronds , 20% rice straw, and 20% swamp grass give the best results but the level of digestibility of dry matter and organic matter on this composition of TMF is still low, that is respectively 36.32% and 35.96%, while the concentration of methane gas produced is at the lowest level of 6.91mM (Imsya et al., 2016) . Therefore, it is necessary to apply feed technology to improve nutrient digestibility of TMF such as ammoniation technology. Fiber sources with low of nutrient value and digestibility could be improve by treatment with chemical, physical and nitrogen sources (Nguyen et al., 2012). The ammoniation treatment reduces particle size and significantly increases the structure of inside and outside cell wall fragility so that decreaces acetyl group of the cell wall polysaccharides and then improve microorganism rumen for accessibility to the cell wall (Adejoro and Hassen, 2017), but Fang et al. (2012) reported that ammoniated straw was not significantly with untreatmentt ammonia for fragly of cell wall sothat gave the same for nutrient digestibility. Level of urea for amoniation as studied by Khejomsat and Wanapat (2010) who reported level of 3% urea for rice straw result stability of nutrient value, N-NH3, total VFA and propionate concentration by in vitro.
Several research about ration with ammoniated show that ration with urea treatmentt rice straw significantly increases dry matter intake, nutrient digestibility and concentration of propionic acid, total VFA and NH3-N on dairy Steer (Gunun et al., 2013). Hossain et al. (2010) reported that ration with rice straw and barley straw ammoniated result improving of OM, CP, NDF and ADF intake. So far, research on the use of TMF ammoniation in rations on Balinnes cattle has not been done and how the effect on Ballinese cattle performance is not known.

Ballinese Cattle and Diet
This research was conducted at Animal Science Farm and Nutrition and Animal Feeding Laboratory, Agriculture Faculty, Sriwijaya University Indonesia. During 180 days from 8 April until 15 October 2019. Eexperimental method on 12 Ballinese cattle with body weight about +150 kg. The design used was a Completely Random Design (CRD), with 4 types of treatmentt rations based on the level of use of TMF ammoniation. The treatmentts include R1 = 60% native grass, R2 = 20% TMF ammoniation + 40% native grass, R3 = 40% TMF ammoniation + 20% native grass, R4 = 60% TMF ammoniation. The ration is added with a 40% concentrate to obtain 100% ration. The comparison between forage and concentrate is 60:40. Parameters measured in vivo are performance including dry matter intake, daily body weight gain and ration efficiency.

In vivo period
It begins with a preliminary period for 30 days that is by weighing the initial body weight of the Ballinese cattle and then calculating the feed intake, which is composed of TMFA and concentrate, and drinking water given ad libitum. During this period, a process of adaptation to the treatmentt ration was performed, in which the Ballinese cattle were fasted in the morning and fed with treatmentt rations during the day. The treatmentt period was carried out for 15 days/period, while the interval of the adaptation period with the next treatment period was 3 days.

Determination of ration, dry matter and crude protein intake
Ration, dry matter and crude protein intake is measured by calculating the difference between the amount of feed and the remaining feed, meanwhile weighing is done every day in the afternoon and morning before the next feed is given.

Determination of body weight gain (BWG)
BWG is measured using a weighing scale once every 15 days or 1 period of research. BWG is obtained by calculating the difference between the final weight and the initial weight.

Feed Efficiency (FE)
FE is calculated by comparing feed intake and daily body weight gain then multiplied by 100%.
The intake of Ballinese cattle ration in this study ranged from 6.89-13.67 kg /head/ day, with the dry matter intake range was 6.23-11.77 kg/head/day and the intake of crude protein was 0.57-0.65 kg/ head/day. Based on the result of variance, it was found that the treatment had significant effect (P <0.05) on the intake of ration and the intake of dry matter, but was not significantly (P> 0.05) on the intake of crude protein. Based on further tests for the parameters of feed intake and dry matter intake, it was found that the intake of ration and the intake of dry matter in the treatmentt of R0 and R1 was significantly (P <0.05) higher than the treatmentt of R2 and R3, while the intake of ration and dry matter on treatmentt R2 is significantly higher (P <0.05) compared to R3. This indicates a decrease in ration intake and intake of dry matter in line with the increased use of TMFA in the ration. The treatment had no significant effect on protein consumption due to an increase in the protein content of the ration with a decrease in ration consumption for each treatment.
Treatment R0 gives the same effect as R1 on ration consumption because the use of native grass is still more than the use of TMFA so that the palatability are not so different. The decrease of ration intake is caused by decreased palatability of rations due to the use of TMFA in the ration. Rations with TMFA contents produce more odors and different colors than control rations. Palatability is an important factor in determining the level of ration intake. The palatability of the ration is determined by the taste, smell, and color of forage feed (McDonald et al., 2012). Huyen et al. (2012) reported that feed intake was affected with physical properties and palatability of feed. The improve in palatability might be due to the blending and processing of less palatable fibrous sources (Jaglan and Kishore, 2005). All of which are strongly influenced by the physical and chemical properties of the ration and may change due to the physiological and psychological differences of the individual livestock (Sebastian et al., 2020). Differences in intake levels are also influenced by various factors such as psychological factors (livestock in a healthy or sick or pregnant state), physiological factors (body weight, species, age, stomach capacity, and rumen digestion rate), feed factor (feed type, feed size, feed quantity, feed mixture, and palatability), and environmental factors (temperature and humidity) (Nurdiati et al., 2012). This result is not consistent with some previous study, urea treatmentt on feed stuff on steer and dairy cow fed had a higher ration intake when compared with non urea treatment ( Ganum et al., 2013).
According to Sebastian et al. (2020), the ability to consume daily feed for each cow in the form of dry matter is as much as 3% of body weight gain. The mean intake of dry matter in cows observed during the study was 7.60-9.70 kg/head/day, or 3% of the weight of beef cattle. Based on these data, it was confirmed that the intake of dry matter in cows during the study was almost sufficient according to the need for beef cattle with a body weight of about 200 kg.
The results of statistical analysis showed that the treatmentt significantly (P <0.05) affected the daily bodyweight gain of Balinese cattle. The treatmentt of R0 gave a significantly higher effect (P <0.05) than the other three treatmentts, while treatmentt of R1 and R4 showed a significantly different effect (P> 0.05), but significantly higher (P <0.05) than treatmentt R2. The results showed that the treatmentt gave a significant effect (P <0.05) on the ration efficiency. Based on further tests, feed efficiency with treatment R0 was significantly higher (P <0.05) compared with treatmentt R1 and R2, but lower than treatmentt R3. The feed efficiency between treatmentt of R1 and R2 was not significant (P> 0.05), but both treatmentts were significantly (P <0.05) lower than the R3 treatment in feed efficiency.
Based on the measurement, the average of daily weight gain is 0.35-0.65 kg / head / day. The decrease of daily weight gain in the utilization of TMF ammonia in the ration is in line with the decrease of ration intake and dry matter intake. Cattle that have a high intake of rations followed by a normal digestion of nutrients will produce high body weight gain (Hafid and Rugayah, 2010). The DWG value is higher compared to DWG in Bali cattle fed with local-sourced rations in the range of 0.3-0.5 kg/head/day (Hafid and Rugayah 2010), whereas the average DWG in heifer grazing legume and given feed mixture of agricultural waste and bran is 0.65-0.95 kg (Capper, 2012;Hristov et al., 2013). According to Auferre (2013), beef cattle with nutrient intake is less than requirement can not show optimal productivity because to increase the weight of beef cattle body must be fulfilled some needs, such as dry matter content, crude protein, and the addition of energy source. Based on the research results, it can be observed that the majority of feed ingredients used by farmers are rice straw with low nutrient value which causes low nutrient intake in beef cattle.
The efficiency of feed utilization in this study ranged from 3.93% -7.42%. The highest feed efficiency was found in the R3 treatmentt of 7.42%. This is due to the intake of dry matter at the treatmentt of R3 is lower, but the DWG is quite high. This shows that the use of 60% ammonia TMF in the ration produces good nutrients for weight gain. The high level of efficiency in R3 is due to the high protein content of the ration and the low content of crude fiber which increases the digestibility of the ration and the absorption of nutrients. Higher feed efficiency values indicate that the rations consumed to produce weight gain are less. Feed efficiency is influenced by several factors, including the ability of livestock in digesting the feed ingredients, the adequacy of nutrients for basic life, growth and body function, and type of feed According to Siregar (2001), feed efficiency for beef cattle ranged from 7.52% to 11.29%. Several factors affect the feed efficiency, such as age, feed quality, and body weight. The better the feed quality, the better the efficiency for energy formation and production (Pond et al., 2005).

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the study, it can be conclude that the use of 60% ammonia TMF in the ration gives the best result on ration for Ballinese cattle, dry matter intake of 6.25 kg/head/day, daily weight gain of 0.47 kg/head/day, feed efficiency of 7.42%.