Effects of Dietary Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis) Waste on Crude Protein Digestibility and Body Weight of Padjadjaran Rams
Authors
- Tubagus Benito Achmad Kurnani Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
-
Lovita Adriani
Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
- Ujang Hidayat Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
- Elvia Hernawan Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
- Sri Bandiati Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2018.21.24Keywords:
Diet, Padjadjaran ram, protein digestibility, sweet orange, wasteAbstract
Background and Objective: Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) being an environmental threat and having many dietary beneficial effects, it could be used in the diet of livestock. Therefore, the present study was conducted with the objective to study the effect of dietary inclusion of Citrus sinensis waste on Padjadjaran sheep. Materials and Methods: This study used 20 Padjadjaran rams with average body weight of 30.42±4.50 kg. The rams were divided into 4 treatments of 5 animals. The sweet orange waste was used at the rate of 0% (control group-R0), 12% (R1), 17% (R2) and 22% (R3). The parameters estimated were crude protein digestibility, initial body weight, final body weight, body weight increase and crude protein of feed. Results: The results indicated that the dietary inclusion of sweet orange waste had no significant (p>0.05) effect on the crude protein digestibility of rams when compared with the control group. However, the highest crude protein digestibility (55.26±13.27%) was observed in the group wherein diet of rams was supplemented with 12% sweet orange waste (R2), followed by (53.40±9.04%) the control group. Further, there was no significant (p>0.05) effect on the body weight of rams fed various levels of sweet orange waste when compared with the control group. Highest body weight (0.63±0.94) was found in the control group, followed by (0.59±0.67) R3 group (fed 22% sweet orange waste in the diet). Conclusion: The inclusion of sweet orange waste up to 22% in the diet had no negative effect in terms of crude protein digestibility and body weight increase of Padjadjaran rams.
References
Oluremi, O.I.A., V.O. Ojighen and E.H. Ejembi, 2006. The nutritive potentials of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) rind in broiler production. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 5: 613-617.
Wardowshi, W.F., S. Nagy and W. Griespn, 1986. Fresh Citrus Fruits. Macmillan Publishers, UK., Pages: 571.
Agriculture Department, 2010. Prospects and directions citrus agribusiness development. Agriculture Department, Kementerian Pertanian, Republic of Indonesa. http://www.litbang.deptan.go.id/special/komoditas/b3jeruk.
Babayemi, O.J., O.A. Ekokoto and U.A. Inyang, 2009. Evaluation of ensiled cassava peels together with Albizia Saman pods. Proceedings of the 34th Animal Conference of the Nigerian Society for Animal Production, March 15-18, 2009, University of Uyo, Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State, Nigeria, pp: 544-546.
Oluremi, O.I.A., J. Ngi and I.A. Andrew, 2007. Phytonutrients in citrus fruit peel meal and nutritional implication for livestock production. Livest. Res. R. Dev., Vol. 19, No. 7.
Adriani, L., E. Hernawan and U. Hidayat, 2014. Decreasing cholesterol and triglyceride level on blood by adding orange (Citrus sinensis) waste on Padjajaran I sheep. Scient. Ser. D: Anim. Sci., 57: 70-73.
Prajoga, S.B.K. and I. Permana, 2009. Genetic evaluation of priangan sheep using multivariate maternal genetic effect and their variation of sheep mitochondrial-DNA. Biotechnol. Anim. Husbandry, 25: 917-924.
Grundy, S.M., R. Pasternak, P. Greenland, S. Jr. Smith and V. Fuster, 1999. Assessment of cardiovascular risk by use of multiple-risk-factor assessment equations: A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology. Circulation, 100: 1481-1492.
Voigt, J. and H. Hagemeister, 2001. Dietary influence on a desirable fatty acid composition in milk from dairy cattle. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 10: 87-104.
WinFeed, 2016. Users guide 2016. WinFeed, Ltd., Cambridge, UK.
Kearl, L.C., 1982. Nutrient Requeriment of Ruminant in Developing Countries. International Feedstuff Institute, Logan Utah, USA.
Tillman, A.D., 1991. Basic Animal Food Science. Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Vansoest, P.J. and J.B. Robertson, 1979. System Analysis for Evaluation Fibrous Feed. In: Standaritation of Analitical Methodology for Feed, Pigdem, W.J., C.C. Balch and M. Graham (Eds.)., IDRC., Canada.
Steel, R.G.D. and J.D.H. Torrie, 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, with Special Reference to Biological Science. 1st Edn., McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York.
Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.
Oyewole, B.O., 2011. Nutritional potential of fermented Sweet orange (Citrus senensis) fruit peel meal in the diets of pullet chicks, grower and layers. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Animal Nutrition, University of Agriculture, Makurdi.
Bampidis, V.A. and P.H. Robinson, 2006. Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 128: 175-217.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
