pH and ORP ∆EH

8

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Nutrient Intake and Feedlot Steer Performance

The RF and control treatments gave similar average nutrient intake during the experimental period Table 3. Daily intake of each steer was approximately 9.5 kg day -1 at dry matter DM basis. The proportion of concentrate and forage intake was 91.5 and 8.5, respectively. Similar pattern to that of DM intake, crude fiber intake, crude protein intake, ether extract intake, nitrogen free extract intake, total digestable nutrients TDN intake and gross energy intake GEI also gave similar results on both treatments. Table 3. Total nutrient intake of feedlot steer administered with RF and without rumen mechanical stimulator Control in short-time rearing. Item Treatment SEM P-value Control RF Average Intake of Nutrient Dry Matter kg h -1 d -1 9.589 + 0.007 9.590 + 0.025 0.002 0.876 Crude Fiber kg h -1 d -1 1.760 + 0.002 1.759 + 0.005 0.000 0.852 Crude Protein kg h -1 d -1 1.292 + 0.001 1.293 + 0.003 0.000 0.572 Ether Extract kg h -1 d -1 0.397 + 0.001 0.397 + 0.001 0.000 0.423 NFE kg h -1 d -1 4.904 + 0.004 4.905 + 0.014 0.001 0.902 TDN £ kg h -1 d -1 6.208 + 0.005 6.210 + 0.016 0.001 0.729 GEI MJ h -1 d -1 16.472 + 0.013 16.475 + 0.045 0.003 0.811 Concentrate : Roughages 91.5 : 8.5 91.5 : 8.5 Notes: NFE=Nitrogen free extract ;TDN=Total Digestible Nutrient. £ = National Research Council, 1984; GEI=Gross Energy Intake; Different upper case letters within rows indicate differences among treatments P≤0.05. Nutrient intake is influenced by the chemical composition within the concentrate and forage. This result indicated that RF treatment was unable to increase feed intake of steers when reared in short-time period. Previous studies also reported that RMS administration resulted in a similar nutrient intake compared to control such as in Thai native steers Bos indicus Angthong et al., 2011, lactating Holstein Matsumoto et al., 2011 and Holstein steers Horiguchi Takahashi, 2004. Table 4. Performance, gain:feed ratio and income over feed cost IOFC of feedlot steers with RF and without rumen mechanical stimulator administration control in short-time rearing. Item Treatment SEM P-value Control RF Performance Total Gain kg h -1 d -1 184.30 + 26.4 171.00 + 27.7 2.721 0.286 ADG kg h -1 d -1 1.98 + 0.28 1.83 + 0.29 0.029 0.287 Gain : Feed ratio 0.21 + 0.03 0.19 + 0.03 0.003 0.288 IOFC Rp h -1 4,248,709 + 950,414 b 2,768,625 + 998,981 a 121,535 0.003 Notes: ADG=Average Daily Gain; IOFC = Income Over Feed Cost; Different upper case letters within rows indicate differences among treatments P≤0.05. 9 The RF and control treatment showed similar performance status on total body weight, gained about 171-184.3 kg. Steers were boosted about 1.84 - 1.98 kg day -1 Table 4. Lallman 1990 adjusted that the yearling beef cattle requires about 8-11 kg day -1 of DM intake which contained 60-70 TDN, to gain at least 1.8 kg day -1 of steer cattle body weigh. Meanwhile, Addah et al. 2014 studied that feedlot steer fed with inoculation and chop-length of whole -crop barley silage about 11 kg day -1 DM capable to gaining the steer weigh up to 1.9-2.0 kg day -1 . Veracini et al. 2012 also reported that Angus beef steer fed around 8.7-10.1 kg day -1 DM and gained the body weight about 1.6 kg day -1 in early 84 days finishing phase fed with shelled corn and soybean meal that was replaced with distillers grain. Ngadiyono 1995 achieved a lower result on BX cattle, about 0.8 to 1.2 kg day -1 . Compared with Lallman 1990 and Addah et al. 2014, the present study resulted appropriate performance. In comparison to Ngadiyono 1995 and Veracini et al. 2012, the average bodyweight gain in this study was obtained better. The results of gain : feed ratio also gave similar value on both treatment, about 0.192-0.207. This result represent that each kg of feed intake was capabled to boosting 0.19-0.20 kg of body weigh Table 4. High concentrate in ration might gained the steer performance effectively, but the RMS administration did not improve body weight gain better than the Control. Angthong et al. 2011 also resulted similar performance by studied Thai native steers with and without RMS administration. Administering the RMS brush into the feedlot steer through mouth at the weighing dock gave an earlier stress that might dropped steers body weight in several days. After the stressed period, the compensatory feeding expectedly could boost steer weight gain but did not gave significant improve than the control. It was believed the RMS administration was unsuitable to improve feedlot steer bodyweigh in short-time period of rearing till the slaughtering limits. Similar performance on both groups also believed as the influence of nutrient intake such crude fibre and crude protein. Althought believed to promote utilised the energy better, the RF group not showed a better result than the control according to fibrous and protein intake on both treatments that achieved above the minimum expectation of steer requirement, 12 and 7 of DM respectively. Lazarini et al., 2009 states that the microbial growth rate was improved at CP levels better than 7 and improve digestibility of low-quality forage. However, the RMS brush administration in this study resulted a similar bodyweight gain and gave the unpoor performance of feedlot steer. With regard to the economy beneficial measured as income over feed cost IOFC, RMS administration was more costly than control P0.05. The RF treatment in each steer had lower IOFC Rp 1,470,000 than the control. This lower IOFC was due to the cost to purchase RMS, i.e. as high as Rp.1,000,000.-, for each cattle.

2. RMS Influence Into Rumen Fermentation Profile Of Feedlot Cattle

The pH status of RF and Control treatment were showed a similar value, about 6.045. The pH status in this study obviously still at a tollerance value, althought below than the minimum standar of minor acidic status catagoryzed. RAGFAR 2007 confirmed that minor acidic status of cattle if pH status of the rumen liquor below than