IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- The effect of katuk (Sauropus androgynus)
Comparative study several feed formulation based and gamal (Gliricidia sepium)
supplementation on the dry matter
on agro-industrial by-product on production digestibility, organic matter digestibility,
and milk quality of Friesian Holstein
S Syawal, S Garantjang, A Natsir et al.
performance and in vivo digestibility of beef cattle
- The Effect of Bromelain from Pineapple
(Ananas comosus) on Increasing Protein
To cite this article: N Rahmawati et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 977 012125 Digestibility of Milk Replacer for Lamb
L Putriana, Z Bachruddin, C Hanim et al.

- The Effect of Herbaceous Legume of Feed

in In-Vitro Digestibility
S. Ratnawaty, Hartutik and S. Chuzaemi
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 190.129.199.13 on 10/02/2023 at 15:40

The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

Comparative study several feed formulation based on agro-

industrial by-product on production performance and in vivo
digestibility of beef cattle

N Rahmawati1, E Lisnanti1, D Rudiono1*, A Mukmin1, M Muladno2 and A

Atabany2
1
Animal Science Study Program, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic University of Kadiri,
Indonesia.
2
Department of Animal Production and Technology, Faculty of Animal Science, Bogor
Agricultural University, Indonesia.

E-mail: *didikrudiono19760@gmail.com

Abstract. The aims of this study was to determine the effect of agro-industrial by-products on
the production performance and digestibility of nutrient of beef cattle with four feed
formulations. The treatments such as F1, F2, F3 and F4. The material used was 28 cows with an
initial weight in the range of 380.11 ± 13.69 kg with Simental and Limousine crossbreeds; beef
cattle faeces samples were 112 samples from 4 feed treatments and 7 replications. The variables
observed were production performance of beef cattle and digistibility of nutrient. The results of
the study shows that the use of agricultural by-products has a significant effect on dry matter
intake (P <0.05). (10.20 ± 0.43 kg/head/day), dry matter digestibility (75.48 ± 1.46%) and no
significantly effect (P>0.05) on organic matter intake, crude protein intake, crude fibre intake,
increasing of daily body weight, feed conversion ratio, feed efficiency, feed cost per gain, income
over feed cost, digestibility of organic matter, digestibility of crude protein, and digestibility of
crude fibre. The conclusion of this study was F3 had the best treatment to increase feed intake,
digestibility of dry, digestibility of organic matter, digestibility of crude protein, crude fibre
digestibility of beef cattle.

1. Introduction
The Community needs for animal protein, especially beef, continues to increase. Data from[1] showing
national meat intake per capita per day is 2015 (2.47 g), 2016 (2.68 g), 2017 (3.13 g), 2018 (3.35 g) and
2019 (4.20 g). Indicated by the increasing population of beef cattle every year. The average population
of beef beef cattle in the last five [2] is as follows: 2015 (508,905 head), 2016 (504,819 head), 2017
(497,669 head), 2018 (506,661 head), and 2019 (524,109 head). The average increase in beef cattle
breeding is still low, reaching only 1 %. Efforts to improve must be balanced with better animal feed
production.
The general problem of beef production on smallholder beef beef cattle farms in Indonesia is the
maintenance of beef cattle that still rely on forage feed, which has low quality if given singly. It's can
cause low feed digestibility and can lead to nutrient deficiency [3]. Providing a single feed in the form
of forage could not meet the nutritional needs of both the rumen microorganisms and the livestock itself,
so other feed components are still needed for nutritional support [4]. Another problem is that farmers do
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

not know the nutritional needs that must be met and do not understand the technology of beef beef cattle
feed processing.
The availability of forage in raising beef cattle in Indonesia depends on the season. The quantity and
quality availability of forage has fluctuated and continued throughout the year and has an impact on beef
cattle development. They need alternative feeds to develop more efficient production that has complete
nutritional value. One alternative is the provision of highly nutritious food with a low economic cost is
the use of agro-industrial by-products [5]. Among them are bean plant waste (peanut shells), rice plant
waste (rice straw and rice bran), corn plant waste (straw and corn cobs), soybean plant waste (soybean
crust), cassava plant waste (cassava peel and dregs), and sugar industry waste (cane molasses).
Agro-industrial by-products production needs to be supported by proper management to reduce
adverse environmental impacts. It can be used for other needs, such as organic fertilizer, animal feed,
soil mulch and others [6]. Utilization of agro-industrial by-products into beef beef cattle expected to
reduce the volume of waste and environmental pollution, reduce feed costs, Increase the economic value
of farmers and promote the development of integrated livestock business in the integrated production
system of agriculture and the industry of agriculture. This integration pattern is known as the "zero waste
production system" [7]. Processing of feed ingredients from agro-industrial by-products into complete
feed will have an impact on increasing nutrient density in the feed. The increase in nutrient density is
mainly caused by the process of counting or making flour as a source of crude fibre feed.
The evaluation of feed formulation based on agro-industrial by-products needed to determine the
nutritive value and nutrient digestibility for livestock. It is that describe feed supplemented with
information: (1) nutrititivevalue of feed formulation include dry matter, crude protein, crude fibre and
crude fat, (2) production performance includedry matterintake, organic matter intake, crude protein
intake, crude fibre intake, daily body weightincrease, feed conversion, feed efficiency, feed cost per gain
(FGC) and income over feed cost (IOFC) and (3) nutrient digestibility in vivo include the digestion of
dry matter and organic matter . The digestibility measurement by in vivo is the process that occurs in
the animal's body. While in vivo measurements occur outside the animal's body by mimicking the
digestive processes that occur in the animal's digestive tract [8].
The aims of this study was to determine the effect of some feed formulation based on agro-industry
by-products on the production performance and digestibility of animal nutrition in vivo.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethical approval

This observe did not require any ethical approval from the University Animal Ethics Committee and
become accomplished according with Indonesia legal guidelines and guidelines on animal welfare.

2.2. Study period and location

The study was conducted from June to September 2019. The study was conducted at the Field
Laboratory of Kadiri Islamic University about feed biological test on beef cattle dan Blitar Livestock
Laboratory about digestibility of animal nutrition.

2.3. Sample collection

The research used material in the form of four types of feed divided into four treatments. The treatments
are F1, F2, F3 and F4. Objects of research were 28 male beef cattles of Simental and Limousine
crossbreed with an initial body weight of beef cattle ranging 380.11±13.69 kg and beef cattle faeces
samples of 112 samples from 4 treatments and 7 replications. Feed formula made according to the
nutritional needs of beef beef cattle in Table 1.
The feeding gives twice a day, morning and evening. Drinking water given to beef cattle is ad libitum
and carried out every day. The feed intake of feed concentrate and forage grass is calculated every day
by weighing the amount of feed given and weighing the remaining feed. The forage grass and
concentrate consumption based on dry matter (% dry matter) x total consumption (kg).

2
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

Table 1. Comparison of ingredients and chemical component of agro-industry by-products for animal
feed formulations for research.

Ingredients Formula1 (%) Formula2 (%) Formula3 (%) Formula 4 (%)

Corn cob 8 34 22 26
Corn grain 17 16 17 16
Rice straw 19 16 18 19
Cassava waste 16 3 7 4
Cassava leaf 2 2 2 2
Soybean meal 4 5 3 3
Molasses 3 3 3 3
Urea 1 1 1 1
Peanut straw 5 0 0 0
Soybean straw 5 0 7 6
Pennisetum purpureum 10 10 10 10
Corn leaf 10 10 10 10
Total 100 100 100 100
Chemical component (%)
DMa 81.43 79.63 81.55 79.93
OMb 56.17 54.33 57.84 53.50
CPc 11.74 12.09 12.33 11.31
EEd 2.74 4.67 3.48 3.93
CFe 15.14 19.48 17.98 17.14
NFEf 45.26 38.88 41.60 40.08
NDFg 46.11 48.98 49.86 50.49
ADFh 31.03 33.41 33.48 34.08
Note : a DM : dry matter; bOM : organic matter; cCP : crude protein; dEE: ether extract; e CF: crude fibre; f NFE:
nitrogen ether extract; gNDF: neutral detergent fibre; hADF:acid detergent fibre.

2.4. Methods
The research has step wise as follows:
a. Introduce. Clustering the beef cattle by body weight, each cluster randomized to get a different
treatmen and beef cattle pen. The first treatment with weighing of each to get data of early body
weight of beef cattle. And then, beef cattles are grouped according to body weight. Each group of
beef cattle was randomized to get the treatment applied, as well as placement in a cage. The feed
treatment phase begins with weighting each beef cattle to get initial body weight data. Data from the
weighing of beef cattles every week is used as guidelines for feeding the following week. During the
treatment period, everyday beef cattle given feed (concentrate and forage) as much as 3% of body
weight calculated in the dry matter = 3% x 380 kg = 11.4 kg DM/head/day. The concentrate given
was 40% and forage grass given was 60% from 11.4 kg of DM.
b. According to the ability to eat the beef cattles during the preliminary stage.
c. Implementation. The concentrate feed was given starts at 7:00 AM as much as 80% and two hours
later, much as 20% of the total feed given. Everyday drinking water is always provided by ad libitum.
During the study, feeds and leftovers recorded daily. Digestion calculation of DM and OMwere done
using the method of total collection for once a week so that 112 stool samples obtained.

2.5. Research indicator

1. Production performance : Dry Matter Intake (DMI); Organic Matter Intake (OMI); Crude Protein
Intake (CPI); Crude Fibre Intake (CFI); Daily Body Weight Increase (DBWI); Feed Convertion Ratio
(FCR); Feed Eficiency (FE); Feed Cost per Gain (FCG); Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC); 2. In vivo

3
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

digestibility : Dry Matter Digestibility (DMD); Organic Matter Digestibility (OMD); Crude Protein
Digestibility (CPD) and Crude Fibre Digestibility (CFD)

2.6. Statistical analysis

Cattle production capacity and in vivo digestibility were analyzed based on a randomized design
followed by advanced Duncan testing. Data processing was performed using the computer software
programs Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS for Windows version 21.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Beef cattle production performance

Data on the influence of utilization of agro-industrial by-products on beef cattle performance served on
the Table 2.

Table 2. Utilization of agro-industrial by-products on production performance of beef cattle.

Treatment
Variable
Formula 1 Formula 2 Formula 3 Formula 4
Dry matter intake
9.10±0.74b 9.16±0.86b 10.20±0.43a 8.55±0.79b
(kg/head/day)
Organic matter intake
7.25 ±0.32 7.45±0.39 8.3±0.47 6.83±0.41
(kg of DM/head/day)
Crude Protein intake
1.07±0.21 1.11±0.15 1.26±0.35 0.97±0.27
(kg of DM//head/day)
Crude Fibre Intake
1.38±0.18 1.8 ±0.26 1.78±0.25 1.47±0.22
((kg of DM/head/day)
Daily body weight
increase 1.54±0.44 1.55±0.31 1.57±0.24 1.23±0.23
(kg/head/day)
Feed conversion ratio
6.42±2.33 6.17±1.57 6.65±1.14 7.11±1.03
(kg of DM/kg of gain)
Feed Efficiency (%) 16.84±4.23 17.14±4.40 15.40±2.52 14.35±2.32
Feed cost per gain 19,780 ±1,623 21,693 ± 2,061 25,027 ± 1,077 20,762 ±1,941
IOFC (IDR/head/day) 57,005.21± 21,418 55,663.87± 16,633 53,329.85± 12,058 40,595.09± 10,654
a,b
Different superscripts on the same line show significant differences (P<0.05).

The utilization of agro-industrial by-products had a significant (P<0.05) effect on dry matter intake
of beef cattle. The dry matter intake value in complete feed ranged from 8.55 – 10.20 (kg/head/day).
The F3 treatment had highest feed intake was 10.20 (kg/head/day) compared to F1, F2 and F4 treatment.
According to [9] said the ability to consume each beef cattle per day in the form of dry matter is 3% of
its body weight. Nutritional requirements of beef cattle based on dry matter is 8.97 kg/head/day. The
data on the F1 to F3 treatments showed that the consumption of beef cattle feed based on dry matter was
in accordance with the standard requirements.
The organic matter intake of beef cattle in Table 2 showed that the the use of agricultural by-products
was not significant (P<0.05) effect and the digestibility value of the organic matter intake in complete
feed ranged from 6.83 - 8.31 (kg of DM/head/day). Organic matter intake is closely related to dry matter
intake because organic matter is part of dry matter. Therefore, the high organic matter intake is caused
by the dry matter intake as well. This is in accordance with the statement of [10], that the similarity in
the intake patterns of organic matter and dry matter is caused organic matter is a component contained

4
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

in dry matter, so the decrease or increase in organic matter intake is strongly influenced by dry matter
intake. The F3 treatment had highest value was 8.31 (kg of DM/head/day) compared to F1, F2 and F4.
It could caused that dry matter intake in the F3 treatment is the highest when compared to the F1, F2
and F4 treatments.
The crude protein intake of beef cattle showed that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products had
no significantly effect (P<0.05) and the digestibility value of crude protein intake in complete feed
ranged from 0.97–1.26 (kg of DM/head/day). [11] stated that the difference in total nutrient content,
especially in protein intake based on the dry matter caused by differences in nutrient content, namely
protein. The F3 treatment had highest value was 1.26 (kg of DM/head/day). This was due to the high
crude protein content of F3 feed compared to other treatments, is12.33 kg/ head/day. [12] added that the
content of crude protein and crude fibre in the feed used greatly influences for feed intake. According
to [9] the standard requirement for beef cattle was 1.08 kg/head/day. The research data showed that
crude protein intake in the treatment of F2 and F3 had met the standard crude protein requirements of
beef cattle, namely 1.11 and 1.26 kg/head/day.
Based on variance analysis showed that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products had no
significant (P<0.05) effect on crude fibre intake of beef cattle. The digestibility value of the organic
matter intake in complete feed ranged from 1.38 – 1.83 (kg of DM/head/day). The high and low of crude
fibre intake is closely related to the crude fibre content of the complete feed. This is in line with the
opinion [12] that the crude fibre content in the feed used greatly influences the crude fibre intake. The
composition of crude fibre that is too high can reduce the level of intake and if the composition of crude
fibre is too low it will adversely affect the fermentation activity in the rumen.
Daily body weight increase is used to measure the growth of livestock weight every day until it
reaches maximum growth, and after that, it has decreased. In general, the main criteria for beef cattle
productivity is an increase in daily body weight (daily gain). Daily body weight increase influenced by
factors of breed beef cattles and feed provided. The F3 treatment had higher Daily Body Weight Increase
(DBWI) because F3 had the highest crude protein content of F3 was 12.45% compared to F1, F2 and
F4 treatment, respectively12.27%, 11.16% and 11.31%. Weight gain is closely related to protein intake
into the body of livestock. High protein content also results in high weight. The intensive fattening
system is carried out by feeding concentrate from agricultural industrial waste and commercial
concentrate. Several studies have shown that fattening beef cattles based on cereal crops such as corn or
sorghum which have relatively high energy content can increase beef cattle daily body weight increase
from 0.90 to 1.54 kilograms per day [13].
The feed conversion is a method to measure feed quality, how many kilograms of feed is needed to
form one kilogram of beef [14]. Based on variance analysis, showed that the utilization of agro-industrial
by-products had no significant effect (P>0.05) on the feed conversion of beef cattle. The feed conversion
value in complete feed ranged from 14.35 – 17.14 %. This value means that to produce 1 kg of body
weight gain, beef cattle need 6.17 – 7.11 (kg of DM/head). The F2 had lowest feed conversion compared
F1, F3 and F4 was 6.17. The lowest value of feed conversion could be caused that F2 treatment produce
high daily body weight increase with low feed intake. It means nutritive value could be provided a
maximal output. [15] stated that the better quality of feed, the lower the conversion of feed produced.
Based on variance analysis, showed that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products had no
significant effect (P>0.05) on the feed efficiency of beef cattle. The feed efficiency value in complete
feed ranged from 14.3 – 17.14 %. The F2 had highest feed efficiency was 17.14%. The higher value of
the use of feed efficiency indicates that the ration consumed less and less to produce weight gain [16].
It is due to the feed given at the time of research in the form of agro-industrial by-products and forages
with the excellent quality so that it can be optimized by livestock. The better the quality of feed, the
better the efficiency of energy formation and production [17].
Feed cost per gain is the number of feed costs required for livestock to produce one kilogram of
weight [18]. Feed cost per gain calculated from feed costs divided by daily daily body weight increase
[19]. Based on the results of a variety of analysis shows that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products
has no significant effect (P>0.05) on the feed cost per beef cattle gain. The feed cost per gain value in

5
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

complete feed ranged from 19,780 – 25,027 IDR/kg. The results showed that F1 treatment had lowest
value of feed cost per gain was 19,780 IDR/kg. This figure can be interpreted to increase body weight
by one kilogram required feed costs of 19,780 IDR. Table 2. Indicated that the daily weight gain
achieved is proportional to the cost of feed that has been spent.
Based on the results of a variety of analysis shows that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products
has no significant effect (P>0.05) on the Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC). The IOFC value in complete
feed ranged from 40,595 – 57,005 IDR/head/day. The highest IOFC was found in the F1 treatment,
which was 57,005 IDR/head/day. This is influenced by FCG being cheap compared to high DBWI. The
factors that influence the calculation of IOFC are daily body weight increase during fattening, feed
intake and feed price. Low feed costs followed by excellent growth and feed efficiency will produce
maximum profits but high body weight gain does not necessarily guarantee high profits [20].

3.2. Digestibility comparison (%) beef beef cattle nutrients

Digestion is the difference between feed consumed and excreted in the faeces and considered absorbed
in the digestive tract. So digestibility is a reflection of the number of nutrient feed ingredients that can
be utilized by livestock. Data of the research show in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of digestibility (%) of beef cattle nutrition with agro-industry by-products.
Treatment
Variable
Formula 1 Formula 2 Formula 3 Formula 4
DMD (%) 71.35 ± 2.01b 68.63 ± 3.62b 75.48 ± 1.46a 66.75±0.95b
OMD(%) 68.42 ±0.87 67.68 ±1.44 69.14 ± 1.21 63.04 ±0.94
CPD (%) 68.75 ± 1.18 63.56 ± 0.89 70.01 ± 0.73 63.93 ± 0.09
CFD (%) 42.25 ± 1.13 26.40 ± 2.07 39.87 ± 1.69 36.00 ± 1.56
a,b
Different superscripts on the same line show significant differences (P<0.05).

The data from the results of analysis of variance showed that utilization of agro-industrial by-
products had a significant (P<0.05) effect on digestibility of dry matter of beef cattle. The digestibility
value of the dry matter in complete feed ranged from 66.75 - 75.48%. The F3 treatment had highest
value of DMD was 75.48%compared to F1, F2 and F4. High quality digestibility illustrates the
contribution of certain nutrients to livestock. Low digestibility feeds, on the other hand, indicate that
feeds are less capable of providing nutrients for basic life and animal production. [21]. [22], stated that
this value indicates the feed has excellent dry matter digestibility because more than 65.51%.
Based on the results of variance analysis showed that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products
had no significant (P>0.05) effect on organic matter digestibility (OMD) of beef cattle. The OMD in
complete feed ranged from 63.04 - 69.14%. The F3 is the best treatment for organic matter digestibility
was 69.14% compared to F1, F2 and F4. Factors affecting the digestibility of organic matter are the
content of crude fibre and minerals from feed ingredients. Since part of the dry matter is composed of
organic matter, the digestion of organic matter is closely related to the digestibility of dry matter [23].
High-value digestibility reflects the contribution of specific nutrients to livestock. Meanwhile, feed
which has a low digestibility indicates that the feed is less able to supply nutrients for basic life and
livestock production purposes [24].
The utilization of agro-industrial by-products had no significant (P>0.05) effect on crude protein
digestibility (CPD) of beef cattle.). The digestibility value of the crude protein in complete feed ranged
from 36.00 - 42.25%. The F1 treatment has the highest CPD was 42.25% which compared to other
treatment. It caused F1 treatment had lowest crude protein contain in complete feed was 15,14%. The
low content of crude protein in F3 treatment can cause an increase crude protein digestibility of due to
the positive association effect of the feed constituents of F3 treatment. According [25], the digestibility
of a mixture of feed ingredients is not always the same as the average digestibility of the of the
ingredients material is called the feed association effect.

6
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

According to [26] the availability and efficiency of the use of protein in a ration by livestock can be
seen from the difference between the amount of protein consumed and excreted by the body either
through faeces or urine. The higher the use of protein and protein digestibility, the higher protein intake
in the body of beef cattle. However, high intake of protein will cause a low ratio of efficient use of
protein [27]. Also, that increasing bodyweight of crossbreed beef cattle (Simental, Limousine,
Charolais) in breeders after using research results can produce a daily bodyweight of 2.33 kilograms
with an average of 1.54 kilograms [28].
Based on the results of variance analysis showed that the utilization of agro-industrial by-products
had no significant (P>0.05) effect on Crude Fibre Digestibility(CFD) of beef cattle. The CFD in
complete feed ranged from 26.40 - 42.25%. The F1 is the best treatment for CFD was 42.25%. This
value could be caused Crude fibre content in F1 treatment lower than F2, F3 and F4 treatment was
15.14%. According to [29] low crude fibre content will facilitate the penetration of microbes rumen
(bacteria, protozoa and fungi) for digest feed nutrients. It means more low crude fibre content in feed
the higher the digestibility of crude fibre.

4. Conclusions and suggestion

The results showed that the Comparative Study F3 treatment was found to be the best treatment in feed
intake, Dry Matter Digestibility (DMD) , Organic Matter Digestibility (OMD) and Crude Protein
Digestibility (CFD) of beef cattle. In order to be able to increase the production performa and nutrient
digestibility really need to only choose feed ingredients that are easy to digest.

References
[1] Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan [Directorate General of Livestock and
Animal Health]) 2019 Statistik Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan [Livestock and Animal Health
Statistics] (Jakarta, Indonesia: Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan [Directorate
General of Livestock and Animal Health]) Available from:
http://pusvetma.ditjenpkh.pertanian.go.id/upload/statistik/1589426278.Buku_Statistik_2019.pdf
[2] Badan Pusat Statistik [Central Bureau of Statistics] 2020 Populasi Sapi Potong Menurut Provinsi
(ekor), 2018 - 2020 Statistik Dasar Populasi Ternak 1sted [Beef Cattle Population by Province
(head), 2018 - 2020 Basic Statistics of Livestock Population 1sted] (Jakarta, Indonesia: BPS
Indonesia)
[3] Liu C, Lai Y, Lu X, Guo P, and Luo H 2016 Effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculants on alfalfa
(Medicago sativa L.) silage quality: assessment of degradation (in situ) and gas production (in
vitro) J. Integr. Agric 15(12) pp 28–34
[4] Polyorach S, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A, and Kang S 2016 Rumen microorganisms, methane
production, and microbial protein synthesis affected by mangosteen peel powder supplement in
lactating dairy beef cattles Trop. Anim. Health. Prod. 48(3) pp 593-01
[5] Sadh P K, Duhan S and Duhan J S 2018 Agro-industrial wastes and their utilization using solid
state fermentation Bioresour and Bioprocess 5(1) pp 1–15
[6] Bharathiraja B, Sudharsana T, Jayamuthunagai J, Praveenkumar R, Chozhavendhan S, and
Iyyappan J 2018 Retracted: Biogas production–A review on composition, fuel properties, feed
stock and principles of anaerobic digestion Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 90 pp 570-82
[7] Henry B K, Eckard R J, and Beauchemin K A 2018 Review: Adaptation of ruminant livestock
production systems to climate changes Animal. 12 pp s445–s56
[8] Wulandari K Y, Ismadi V D Y B, and Tristiarti 2013 Kecernaan serat kasar dan energi metabolis
pada Ayam Kedu umur 24 minggu yang diberi ransum dengan berbagai level protein kasar dan
serat kasar [Digestibility of crude fiber and metabolic energy in Kedu Chicken aged 24 weeks fed
rations with various levels of crude protein and crude fiber] Anim. Agric. J. 2(1) pp 9–17
[9] Periambawea D K A, Sutrisna R, and Liman 2016 Status nutrien sapi peranakan ongole di
Kecamatan Tanjung Bintang Kabupaten Lampung Selatan [Nutrient status of peranakan ongole

7
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

cattle in Tanjung Bintang District South Lampung Regency] Jurnal Ilmiah Peternakan Terpadu
4 pp 6–12
[10] Suwignyo, B, Wijaya U A, Indriani R, Kurniawati A, Widiyono I, and Sarmin S 2016 Konsumsi,
kecernaan nutrien, perubahan berat badan dan status fisiologis Kambing Bligon Jantan dengan
pembatasan pakan [Intake, nutrient digestibility, body weight gain and physiology response status
on feed restriction of Male Bligon Goat] Journal Science Veteriner 34(2) pp 210-9
[11] Sizmaz O, Calik A, Sizmaz S, and Yildiz G 2016 A comparison of camelina meal and soybean
meal degradation during incubation with rumen fluid as tested in vitro Ankara Üniv. Vet. Fak.
Derg. 63 pp 157-61
[12] Carvalho M C, Soeparno, and Ngadiyono N 2010 Pertumbuhan dan produksi karkas sapi
peranakan ongole dan simmental peranakan ongole jantan yang dipelihara secara feedlot [Growth
and carcass production of Ongole Crossbred Cattle and Simmental Ongole Crossbred Cattle
reared in a feedlot system] Buletin Peternakan 34 pp 38–46
[13] Day C N and Morawicki O 2018 Effects of fermentation by yeast and amylolytic lactic acid
bacteria on grain sorghum protein content and digestibility J. Food. Qual. 2018 pp 1–8
[14] Neto O J D A G, Parente M O M , Parente H N, Alves A A, dos Santos P A C, Filho M A M,
Zaine A M, Ferreira D J, Bezerra L R, and GomesM R M S 2016 Intake, nutrient apparent
digestibility, and ruminal constituents of crossbred dorper × santa inês sheep fed diets with
babassu mesocarp flour Sci. World. J. 2016 pp 1–8
[15] Malinowska E and Jankowski K 2020 The Effect of spent mushroom substrate and beef cattle
slurry on sugar content and digestibility of alfalfa grass mixtures Int. J. Agron. 2020 pp 1–6
[16] Handayanta E, Lutojo, and Nurdiati K 2018 Efisiensi produksi sapi potong pada peternakan rakyat
pada musim kemarau di daerah pertanian lahan kering Kabupaten Gunungkidul Caraka Tani
[Beef cattle production efficiency on traditional livestock during the dry season in dry land
agricultural areas, Gunungkidul Regency Caraka Tani] J. Sustain. Agric. 32(1) pp 49–56
[17] Mottet A, Henderson B, Opio C, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Silvestri S, Chesterman S, and Gerber P
J 2017 Climate change mitigation and productivity gains in livestock supply chains: insights from
regional case studies Reg. Environ. Chang. 17(1) pp 129–41
[18] Britt J H, Cushman R A, Dechow C D, Dobson H, Humblot P, Hutjens M F, Jones G A, Ruegg
P S, Sheldon I M, and Stevenson J S 2018 Invited review: Learning from the future – A vision
for dairy farms and beef cattles in 2067 J. Dairy. Sci. 101(5) pp 3722–41
[19] Rauf J 2015 Kajian Potensi limbah pertanian sebagai pakan ternak sapi potong di Kota Pare Pare
[Study of agricultural waste potential as beef cattle feed in Pare-Pare City] J. Galung. Trop. 4(3)
pp 173–8
[20] Purwanti D, Suryahadi, and Amirroenas D E 2014 Performa sapi potong sebagai respon dari
suplementasi probiotik padat dan cair [Performance of beef cattle in response to solid and liquid
probiotic supplementation] Bul. Makanan Ternak 12(1) pp 13–24
[21] Mirzah and Muis H 2015 Peningkatan kualitas nutrisi limbah kulit ubi kayu melalui fermentasi
menggunakan Bacillus amyloliquefaciens [Improving Nutrient Quality of Cassava Peel Waste
by Fermentation Using the Bacillus amyloliquefaciens] J. Peternak. Indones.17(2) pp 131–42
[22] Riswandi, Muhakka, and Lehan M 2015 Evaluasi nilai kecernaan secara in vitro ransum ternak
sapi bali yang disuplementasi dengan probiotik bioplus [In vitro evaluation of digestibility value
of bali cattle feed supplemented with bioplus probiotics] J. Peternak Sriwij. 4(1) pp 35–46
[23] Ülger G T, Songur A N, Cirak O, and Cakiroglu F P 2018 Rule of Vegetable in Human Nutrition
and Disease Prevention (London, UK: IntechOpen) p 34–47 Available from:
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/61691
[24] Gashaw M and Defar G 2017 Livestock feed resources, nutritional value and their implication on
animal productivity in mixed farming system in Gasera and Ginnir Districts, Bale Zone, Ethiopia
Int. Journal of Livestock Production 8(2) pp 12–23
[25] Mathius I W, Gaga I B, and Sutama I K 2002 Kebutuhan Kambing PE jantan muda akan energi
dan protein kasar: konsumsi, kecernaan dan pemanfaatan nitrogen [Needs of young male PE

8
The 5th International Conference on Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 977 (2022) 012125 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/977/1/012125

Goats for energy and crude protein: nitrogen consumption, digestibility and utilization] JITV 7(2)
pp 99–109
[26] Nosworthy M G, Medina G, Franczyk A J, Neufeld J, Appah P, Utioh A, Frohlich P, and House
J D D H 2018 Effect of processing on the in vitro and in vivo protein quality of red and green
lentils (Lens culinaris) Food Chem. 240 pp 588–93
[27] Sari N F, Ridwan R, Rohmatussolohat, Fidriyanto R, Astuti W D, and Widyastuti Y 2018
Characteristic of different level of fermented concentrate in the rumen metabolism based on in
vitro J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 43(3) pp 296–305
[28] Pamungkas D, Mariyono, Antari R and Sulistya T A 2013 Imbangan pakan serat dengan penguat
yang berbeda dalam ransum terhadap tampilan sapi Peranakan Ongole jantan [The balance of
fiber feed with different reinforcements in the ration on the appearance of Ongole Peranakan
cattle] Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknologi Peternakan dan Venteriner] pp 107–115

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the support by of the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher
Education for the University Collaboration Research between the Islamic University of Kadiri and the
Bogor Agricultural Institute. The authors also express our deepest gratitude to Dr. Didik Rudiono as
Chair of the Research and Community Service of the Islamic University of Kadiri, Dr. Edy Soenyoto as
Head of Agriculture Faculty and Mr. Amril Mukmin as Head of Animal Science Study Program, Islamic
University of Kadiri.