148 Table 2. Quality of natural grasses and plant residues in KUNAK and KPSBU
Type of forage Parameters
DM Ash
Fat CP
CF Ca
P VFA
NH
3
DMD OMD TDN ME NEL
DM mM
MJkg DM KUNAK
Natural Grasses 24.25
8.49 2.30 5.49 26.19 0.05 0.12
96.21 3.96 37.30 36.69 69.93
6.24 3.39 Rice straw
18.52 17.89 1.33 6.72 26.27 0.04 0.10 141.75
6.95 34.08 34.34 44.18 5.93 3.17
Cabbage plant residue 6.00 11.40 1.56 19.34 12.73 0.24 0.16 135.89 15.36 83.38 84.91 75.79 10.04 6.10
Corn stover 20.18
3.33 0.75 4.63 26.33 0.05 0.15
75.27 5.75 47.25 49.63 47.86
6.93 3.91 KPSBU
Sasawuhan Daman Cibogo 15.02 15.36 3.63 15.58 29.49 0.10 0.37
54.40 16.99 34.33 29.99 51.67 7.62 7.62
LampuyangPanicum repens 23.32
6.60 2.09 12.72 27.02 1.35 0.09 133.65 6.77 46.21 45.32 64.81
7.84 7.20 KakawatanCynodon dactylon
Pers. 28.05 10.77 2.01 14.05 30.02 0.09 0.22
92.26 8.92 39.14 94.40 59.08
6.88 7.90 LametaLeersia hexandria
21.94 18.03 5.36 16.57 27.96 0.09 0.17 98.85
8.73 35.47 33.43 44.96 8.29 8.29
MalelaBrachiaria mutica 22.09 12.44 1.79 11.92 26.88 0.06 0.33 130.90 14.41 58.23 56.39 61.57
8.03 8.03 Rumput TekiCyperus rotundus .L 20.00
9.52 1.56 9.21 29.96 0.13 0.26
55.50 12.81 31.18 27.46 65.43 6.43 6.43
LamsaniTricholaena rosea 13.16 11.26 2.05 14.67 29.43 0.13 0.27
88.33 13.34 43.11 41.10 59.24 7.18 7.18
Rice straw 34.41 16.49 1.65
8.97 29.38 0.07 0.12 44.06 13.12 27.54 28.43 50.51
5.01 3.42 Cabbage plant residue
5.92 12.30 1.92 28.17 11.67 0.09 0.16 135.89 15.36 83.38 84.91 61.58 10.04 6.10 Corn stover
22.41 15.07 2.34 13.29 22.19 0.25 0.25 131.32 11.72 45.53 44.86 57.57 5.72 5.65
Banana leaves 23.30 13.16 5.59 14.05 18.87 0.57 0.18
Blenung LeavesErythrina variegate
17.15 9.10 2.01 24.12 32.46 0.24 0.29 164.91 11.98 40.13 43.30 55.57
6.77 6.77
149 Table 3. Proportion and contribution of natural grass and plant residues in
cows daily ration
Parameters Contribution to total forage
Contribution to total ration KUNAK
KPSBU KUNAK
KPSBU drought rainy drought rainy drought rainy drought rainy
Natural grasses DM
2.77 5.72
28.11 15.59
1.87 3.6
15.77 11.5
CP 3.17
5.03 26.28
22.23 1.59
1.92 15.88
13.58 CF
2.93 5.67
27.4 19.41
2.14 3.85
20.85 18.84
TDN 3.21
1.52 26.68
19.01 2.4
1.43 13.96
10.33 Plant residues
DM 38.54 48.91
5.29 14.14 24.91 25.52
3.73 8.2
CP 18.71 38.75
5.17 7.76
10.72 18.92 3.91
4.7 CF
39.01 47.05 5.12
15.6 27.71 29.23
4.17 11.54
TDN 28.25 43.04
5.26 11.63
19.52 22.9
3.48 5.94
Natural grass + Plant residues DM
41.31 54.63 33.4
29.73 33.4
26.78 29.12
19.5 CP
21.88 43.78 31.45
29.99 31.45 12.31 20.84
19.79 CF
41.94 52.72 32.52
35.01 32.52 29.85 33.08
25.02 TDN
31.46 44.56 31.94
30.64 31.94 21.92 24.33
17.44
In total, non-cultivated forages were contributed more than 50 to the total forages’ needed in KUNAK and up to 34 in KPSBU. The forage played
higher role during rainy season in KUNAK but drought season in KPSBU which showed that at higher number of animal kept and centralized area of
dairy farming like in KUNAK, forage insufficiency were more significant in both seasons than in traditional smallholders dairy farmer which increase
their difficulties in getting forage if the drought seasons come.
4. References
[1] [AOAC] Associaton of Official Analitycal Chemist. 2003. Official Method of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical of
Chemist . Virginia US: Association of Official Analytical Chemist Pr.
[2] W. Close and K.H. Menke. 1λ86. “Selected Topics in Animal
Nutrition”. DSE, Stuttgart. [3] Dairy National Survey 2012. Dairy performance measurement as
based for dairy cattle development planning in Indonesia. Collaboration between Directorate General for Livestock Service and
Animal Health, Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture with Faculty of Animal Science Bogor Agricultural University.
[4] General Laboratory Procedure. 1966. Report of Dairy Science. Madison USA: University of Wisconsin.
150 [5] C. Naumann and R. Bassler. 1997. VDLUFA-Methodenbuch Band III,
Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. 3rd ed. VDLUFA- Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.
[6] L.L. Reitz, W.H. Smith and M.P. Plumlee. 1987. Animal Science Department. West Lafayette: Purdue Univ Pr.
[7] P.J. Riethmuller, J. Chai, D. Smith, B. Hutabarat, B. Sayaka and Y. Yusdja. 1999. The mixing ratio in the Indonesian dairy industry.
Agricultural Economics 201 : 51
– 56 [8] H.H. Taussky and E. Shorr. 1953. A micro colorimetric method for
the determination of inorganic phosphorus. J Biol Chem 202 :675- 685.
[9] J.M.A. Tilley and R.A.Terry. 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro
digestion of forage crop. J of British Grassland. 18:104-111. [10] N.C. Brady and R.R. Weil. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils.
11
th
ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J. Prentice Hall. [11] F.A. Bazzaz. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession.
Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:351-371
151
Effect of seed density and nutrient source on production and quality of green house fodder as dairy cattle feed
Idat G. Permana
1,
, Despal
1
, Dara Melisa
1
1
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology Faculty of Animal Science, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, 16680, Indonesia
Corresponding author: permanaipb.ac.id
Abstract
This study examined the effect of seed density and biogas bioslurry on production and quality of green house fodder. Corn grain was
grown for 9 days in greenhouse under hydroponic system. The density of corn seed were D1 350 gtray or 36 g100 cm
2
, D2 450 gtray or 46 g100 cm
2
and D3 500 gtray or 51 g100 cm
2
and the tray size was 28 x 35 cm. The nutrient solution were N1 100 commercial nutrient solution, N2
75 commercial nutrient solution: 25 biogas bioslurry and N3 50 commercial nutrient solution: 50 biogas bioslurry. This experiment used
a factorial design 3x3x3 and data analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. The parameters studied were fresh and dry matter
DM corn fodder production, in vitro dry matter digestibility IVDMD and in vitro
organic matter digestibility IVOMD. Fresh fodder production was significantly p0.01 influenced by increasing of the seed density. The seed
density of D3 and D4 produced significantly p0.05 higer than D1, the fresh fodder production of D1, D2 and D3 were 715, 855 and 933 gtray
respectively. The use of 25 bioslurry N2 as substitute the commercial nutrient solution was no significant effect on production compared with
commercial nutrient solution. However, the use of 50 of bioslurry N3 decreased the fresh fodder production. The seed density and nutrient
solution were no significant effecton DM corn fodder production, however, had significantlyeffect p0.05 on IVDMD and IVOMD of corn fodder.
The highest IVDMD and IVOMD were observed in N2 84.8 and 85.3. Base on the results, it can be concluded that the application of 25 bioslurry
as nutrient source and medium seed density 46 g100 cm
2
will improve fresh corn fodder production and digestibility.
Keywords
bio-slurry, corn, dairy, density, hydroponics
1. Introduction
Increasing population of Indonesian resulted massive agricultural land conversion which leads to decreasing land availability for fodder
productions that are needed to maintain ruminant healthy life [1]. Land intensity with vertical farming such as hydroponic system could be used as
