Utilization of liquid multi-microbe probiotics supplemented urea red palm sugar block as a potential improving balance of microorganisms in digestive tract for cattle economical production

Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements, providing beneficial effects on the host animal by improving balance of microorganisms in digestive tract. This study aims to examine the benefits of liquid multi-microbe probiotic supplementation on nutrient digestibility and economical production of beef cattle. The treatments were including ration control using fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block without liquid probiotic supplement (T0), fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block + liquid probiotic supplement of 2.0 cc/liter fresh water (T1), fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block + liquid probiotic supplement of 4.0 cc/liter fresh water (T2) and fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block + liquid probiotic supplement of 6.0 cc/liter fresh water (T3). Experimental design applied the Randomized Block Design involving 24 male cattle, divided into six groups of animal ages and four liquid multi-microbe probiotic doses. Parameters were feed dried matter consumption (DMC), average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion and income over feed costs (IOFC). The data were analyzed by variance analysis continued by Duncan test. Results showed that liquid multi-microbe probiotics supplementation of 2.0 to 6.0 cc/liter fresh water and URPS-Block of 350 g/day added into forages increased significantly (P<0.05) production of cattle indicated by significant higher ADG of 510 to 570 g (P<0.05) compared with those of control ration producing ADG of 380 g. The increase of animal production was supported linearly by the increasing drinking water consumption supplemented with liquid probiotic levels of 2.0 to 6.0 cc/liter fresh water of animals. Cattle supplemented with liquid probiotic of 2.0 to 6.0 cc/liter fresh water/animal/day also produced higher IOFC, equivalent with increases of 55.67 to 80.87 percents IOFC compared with the animals fed the control ration without liquid probiotics.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology
Published
2024-10-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.53022/oarjst.2024.12.1.0124
Primary Topic
Food and Agricultural Sciences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Utilization of liquid multi-microbe probiotics supplemented urea red palm sugar block as a potential improving balance of microorganisms in digestive tract for cattle economical production

Wapsiaty Utiah, Jane Onibala, Afriza Yelnetty, Umar Paputungan et al.
Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology
Food and Agricultural Sciences
article

Utilization of liquid multi-microbe probiotics supplemented urea red palm sugar block as a potential improving balance of microorganisms in digestive tract for cattle economical production

Wapsiaty Utiah, Jane Onibala, Afriza Yelnetty, Umar Paputungan, Charles L. Kaunang
article en

Abstract

Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements, providing beneficial effects on the host animal by improving balance of microorganisms in digestive tract. This study aims to examine the benefits of liquid multi-microbe probiotic supplementation on nutrient digestibility and economical production of beef cattle. The treatments were including ration control using fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block without liquid probiotic supplement (T0), fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block + liquid probiotic supplement of 2.0 cc/liter fresh water (T1), fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block + liquid probiotic supplement of 4.0 cc/liter fresh water (T2) and fresh forage of King grass (Pennisetum purpureum) + 350 g of URPS-Block + liquid probiotic supplement of 6.0 cc/liter fresh water (T3). Experimental design applied the Randomized Block Design involving 24 male cattle, divided into six groups of animal ages and four liquid multi-microbe probiotic doses. Parameters were feed dried matter consumption (DMC), average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion and income over feed costs (IOFC). The data were analyzed by variance analysis continued by Duncan test. Results showed that liquid multi-microbe probiotics supplementation of 2.0 to 6.0 cc/liter fresh water and URPS-Block of 350 g/day added into forages increased significantly (P<0.05) production of cattle indicated by significant higher ADG of 510 to 570 g (P<0.05) compared with those of control ration producing ADG of 380 g. The increase of animal production was supported linearly by the increasing drinking water consumption supplemented with liquid probiotic levels of 2.0 to 6.0 cc/liter fresh water of animals. Cattle supplemented with liquid probiotic of 2.0 to 6.0 cc/liter fresh water/animal/day also produced higher IOFC, equivalent with increases of 55.67 to 80.87 percents IOFC compared with the animals fed the control ration without liquid probiotics.

Open Access Research Journal of Science and TechnologyVol. 12(1)
Universitas Sam Ratulangi
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Food and Agricultural Sciences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Utilization of liquid multi-microbe probiotics supplemented urea red palm sugar block as a potential improving balance of microorganisms in digestive tract for cattle economical production — Wapsiaty Utiah, Jane Onibala, et al. · Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS