Effectiveness of using local ingredients ration to increase KUB chicken productivity in the grower period. Issue 1 (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Prasetyo, A; Prabowo, A; Sudrajad, P; Hayati, R N
• Is Part Of: IOP conference series. Volume 788:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: Earth sciences -- Periodicals; Environmental sciences -- Congresses; Environmental sciences -- Periodicals; 550.5
• DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/788/1/012037
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1755-1307

Abstract

Abstract: This study aims to determine the effect of feeding local ingredients to 315 Kampung Unggul Balitbangtan (KUB) chickens, to determine whether this method can increase feed efficiency and productivity. The study used an experimental method using a randomized block design (RBD) consisting of 3 treatments and 7 replications (breeders). Each breeder was assigned 45 chickens, which were maintained until the age of 10 weeks. The treatments tested were P1 = specific feed of breeder (breeder pattern); P2 = feed containing bran (23%), corn (10%), fish meal (11.5%), oil palm cake (24%), BR-1 concentrate (30%), moringa leaf powder (1%) and mineral mix (0.5%); P3 = feed containing bran (25%) and BR-1 concentrate (75%). The observed parameters were feed consumption, final weight, feed conversion ratio (FCR), feed efficiency and Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC). Statistical analysis was carried out on the results using an ANOVA test. When a significant difference was found, it was followed up by a TTukey test with a significant degree a = 0.05, which aimed to find out the difference in the mean between the treatment groups. The results showed that there was a significant difference in the weight gain of KUB chickens overtime during the 10 week study period. This was significantly affected (P<0.05) by feed treatment. The Feed Conversion Ratio was also significantly affected (P<0.05) by the feed treatment. Furthermore, there was significance in IOFC between feed treatments, P3 IOFC (IDR 31, 261), P2 (IDR 27, 068) and P1 (IDR 25, 877). Lastly, there was no significance in FCR between treatments of P1 and P2, whereas there was significance between P3 when compared to P1 and P2.