Dr.

Irfan Djunaidi

• IPTEK dan TEKNOLOGI PENGOLAHAN

BAHAN PAKAN
 Feedstuff used in livestock Diets
Classification of Feeds

1. Dry rougrahes and straw

2. Fresh roughages
3. Silage
4. Energy Sources
5. Protein Sources
6. Mineral sources
7. Vitamin sources
8. Non-nutritive additives
 Dry forages and roughages

• 18% crude fiber, low TDN

• High in cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin
• Protein variable
• Harvest date critical
• Examples
 Silages

• Storage results in fermentation

– Anaerobic bacteria
– Bacteria produce lactic acid
• Lowers pH to 4.0 or lower
• High levels of heat 80-100oF

– Optimum moisture content

• 25-35% Dry Matter 75 – 65% Moisture
• To dry will burn up
 Energy feeds

• <18 crude fiber (or <35% cell wall) <20% CP

• High in starch – grains

• Examples:
– Corn, 9%CP
– Barley, high starch feed, <11% CP
– Oats 12%
– Wheat, 14% CP
 Energy feeds

• Storage ~ very important

• Future
– Grains that are high in needed trait
– High levels of Lysine
– Low Levels of Phosphorus
 Protein supplements

• Most critical, most expensive

• Function:
– Building blocks

• Examples:
– Animal
– Plant
 Protein supplements
Examples:
– Animal origin: highest-readily available offer A.A.
• Meat -
• Blood - 80-90%
• Fish -
• Feather -

– Plant origin
• Soybean meal- 44%
• By-products
– Distillers grain - 25
– Corn gluten - 25-30%
– Soybean Hulls -

– Non-protein nitrogen: not readily available a.a.

• Urea 281% CP
 Mineral supplement

Concentrated or blended – carriers

1. Mixed with diet
– Cost effective

2. Fed free choice

– May over consume
– Different vitamins and minerals in containers
– Animals choose???
– Salt
 Remember

• Grains
– High in Phosphorus Low in Calcium

• Forages
– High in Calcium Low in Phosphorus
 Vitamin supplementation

1. Fat soluble
• Vitamins A, D, E, K

2. Water soluble
• Synthesized by ruminants
• Vitamin B
 Non-nutritive additives
• Added to fill a specific need

• Definition – a substance will stimulate growth

or improve feed efficiency

• Drugs
– Antibiotics
– Sulfa compounds Fed continually see increase
– Cocidiostates in performance
– Wormers
 Non-nutritive additives
• Banned in 1995 in Europe

• US – McDonalds ~ 2003
– Only those that are used to promote growth
– Antibiotics to treat sickness cleared

• Three types
– Concentrate ~ mainly for feed companies
– Premix – mixed with carrier ~ corn or SBM
– Complete Feed ~ Precondition pellets
 Feed Processing
• Operation necessary to achive the
maximum potential nutritional value of
feedstuff.
• Accelerate rate of ingesta passage and
altered site of digestion within GI are both
likely end result of physicochemical change
in processed grain.
 Processsing Methods
1. Physics (primary treatment):
- a most simple processing method, in term
to breakdown physical structure , CHO
matrix of cell wall
- Reduce particle size
- Remove ANF
- a least cost
Physical treatment :
a. Drying : on high moisture content using
oven, blower, freeze dryer, or sun light.
b. Chopping and grinding, will break cell wall
and fiber, and increase surface area, that
easier for gastro microbes to penetrate a cell
wall layer
c. Pelleting; effective for bulky feed material
advantages : increase homogenity, density,
less dusty, easy handling, and less wasting
d. Steaming : open cell wall fiber, will be
increase digestibility
e. Soaking

2. Chemical treatment (secondary treatment) :

- mostly applied on roughages, to improves
digestibility and feed consumption
- Costly
- Improve feed consumption and
digestibility
Chemical treatments:
a. Acid treatment : H2SO4, HCl
b. Base treatment : NaOH, KOH, Ca(OH)2
c. Oxydation : SO2

3. Biological treatment (Bioconvertion):

using enzyme activity through
fermentation, fungi, or other microbes in
term to delignification of the material and
improve digestibility of the feed
 Processsing : Physic and/or Chemical

• Physic changes result from such things as

moisture addition or removal, heat,
pressure, and particle reduction

• Chemical change may include structural

change in the starch and disrupting the
protein matrix, resulting in change in
digestibility and metabolic end product.
 Feed cost in Animal production
• Finishing cattle : 70 %
• Milk production : 55%
• Finishing lamb : 50%
• Pork production : 65 – 75%
• Broiler : 80%
• Layer : 75 %
Feed efficiency improvement 5 -10% make a
large increase in profit.
 PURPOSES OF PROCESSING
1. Make more profit, enhanced by reducing cost (feed
efficiency) or increasing production
2. Alter particle size, make better digestibility
3. Change moisture content : safer to store, more palatable
and more digestible
Standar max. moisture content :
Corn : 14%
grain shorgum : 14%
soybean : 13%
barley & oat : 14.5%
4. Change feed density.
The weight per unit volume (bulk), affect feed intake
fortunately in form pellet or cube

5. Change acceptability (palatability), and molasses, flavor

(salt) or fats maybe added.

6. Change nutrient content (iron content of dried milk)

7. Increase nutrient availability and digestibility : by

increasing surface area greater rumen microbial activity
and giving rumen microorganism and digetive enzyme
easier access to starch and readily utilizable nutrient.
8. Detoxify or remove undesirable ingredients
Heating will reduce effect of trypsin & chymotrypsin
inhibitor, thiaminase, saponin and gossipol (+ iron salt)

9. Improve keeping supply, because feeds are seasonally

produced, some of them must be stored, with moisture
content less than 14%.

10. Reduce storage and transportation space and cost

11. Lessen molds, salmonella, and other harmfull substances in

feeds.
12. Enhance rumen by pass, by heating, pressing or adding
substance (protected or escape protein)
SELECTING THE PROCESSING METHOD
A. NUTRITIONAL CONSIDERATION
1. Type of grain
2. Uniformity and quality of finished product
3. Moisture content
4. % concentrate in the ration
5. Change in structure of the starch
6. Feed intake, rate of production and feed efficiency
7. Effect of health
8. Influence on the end product
 Purposses of Fat added
1. Increases the caloric density of the ration
2. Improves palatability
3. Facilitates absorption of fat soluble vit.
4. Provide fatty acids
5. Delay the sensation of hunger
6. Control of dust
7. Lubricates feed processing equipment
Fat added problems :
1. High level of fat in pelleted can cause soft
pellets
2. Fats can become rancid.
3. Animal fat tend to solidify in cold weather
4. Fat can coat and clog mixing and distribution
equipments
5. How to added and mixed them in the ration
• Nutritive Feed Additives :

1. Anti fungal (mold inhibitor) : prevent harmful mold

in feed or digestive tract.
2. Antioxidants : used to protect the polyunsaturated fatty
acid and fat soluble vit. from peroxidation
3. Enzymes : used to improve digestibility of certain feedstuff
4. Flavoring agents : effort to improve the palatability
5. Pellet binders : used to improve firmness of pellets
B. Non nutritional consideration
1. Time of grain purchase
2. Size of operation
3. Effect of hauling cost
4. Type of ration and kind of operation
5. Capacity of mill
6. Initial investment in equipment
7. Maintenance, repair, and operating cost
8. Labor and energy requirement
Grain Quality for Feeding
Livestock
Irfan H. Djunaidi
 What does Grain Quality
MEAN?
• Grain Trade • Animal feeding
– Test weight – Level of energy
– Level of foreign – Level of protein, lysine
material – Availability of
– Color nutrients
– Fines & broken kernels
– Moisture
 Grain Quality Factors

Let’s look at some of them from each

point of view
 Foreign Material
• To the Food Manufacturer, Importer-
Exporter, or elsewhere in the grain trade:
– Very important that corn be all corn
• To livestock:
– Depends on what the foreign material is.
Foreign material
• If a truck previously
carried a load of rock,
foreign material might
be a very bad thing.
 Foreign Material
• If a truck carrying corn had previously
carried wheat, then the foreign material
present to feed to livestock might not be
such a bad thing.
Sometimes there is a relationship
between foreign material and test
weight.
 Effects of TEST WEIGHT
• Test Weight is important because of the
way we sell corn, by volume (bushel = 34,5
liter )
– but we weigh it to determine that value
• We do not want to buy a light test-weight
bushel because we will get less corn.
• But … If we have 100 lbs of corn, does it
matter what the volume (test weight is)?
 Effect of Test Weight on
Composition of Dry Matter (NRC)
Test Weight, lb/bu
(%) 46 49 52 54 56

Crude Fiber 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3

Ether Extract 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6
NFE 81.3 81.2 81.4 81.1 81.4
Crude Protein 10.4 10.5 10.3 10.5 10.2
DE, Kcal/lb 1846 1808 1865 1848 1848
 Effect of Corn Test Weight on
Composition, JAS 29:977
Corn test wt (lb/bu)
Nutrient, % 35.2 46.1 57.8
Crude protein 11.7 10.5 11.0
Ether extract 2.9 3.1 4.7
Crude Fiber 3.5 2.7 2.2
Ash 2.0 1.8 1.4
NFE 79.9 81.9 80.7
Gross Energy, 2018 2013 2036
Kcal/lb
Effect of Test Weight on Digestibility of
Corn by Swine
(NRC - Corn, dent, grain gr 1-5 US)

Test Weight, lb/bu

(%) 46 49 52 54 56

Crude Fiber 35 41 47
Ether Extract 67 72 70
NFE 92 94 93
Crude Protein 76 81 80
TDN 92.1 90.2 93.1 92.2 92.2
Comparisons for Swine of Corn by Test Weight and
Foreign Material
(NRC - Corn, Grain, Canadian)

Test Wt, lbs/bu: 56 54 52 50 57

Foreign 2 3 5 7 12
material,%:
Digestibility coefficient
Crude fiber 47 47 47 47 47
Protein 80 80 80 80 80
Energy, Kcal/Kg 4071 4071 4064 4063 4069
TDN, % 92.3 92.3 92.2 92.2 92.3
 Effect of Test Weight on Chick
Performance
Test Weight Dietary 21-day Feed/
Protein, wt gain gain
Grain Ground %
55 55 20 383 1.67
49 52 20 350 1.72
42 48 20 372 1.66
36 41 20 337 1.76
 Effect of Test Weight on Chick
Performance
Test Weight Dietary 21-day Feed/
Protein, wt gain gain
Grain Ground %
55 55 15 274 1.97
42 48 15 267 1.99
36 41 15 266 1.97
 Broken Kernels
• For livestock, we grind the grain anyway!
• But:
– Broken kernels more susceptibility to:
• insect damage
• mold growth
• moisture accumulation
– So Storage Quality Decreased
 Conclusion - Effect of Test
Weight on Animal Performance

• ALMOST NONE!
• If they can eat enough feed to meet their
energy needs.
 Conclusion - Effect of Foreign
Material on Animal Performance

• Depends on the foreign material

• There may be other considerations, however
– Storage quality
– Insect susceptibility
– Drying characteristics
– Transportation & storage costs
 Cost Considerations
• Example: $2.80/56 lb. = $0.05/lb
• If corn weighs 50 lb/bu instead of 56, then
its equivalent price is $2.50 (because
$2.50/50 = 0.05).
– If priced lower it may be a good value
(depending on those other factors: storage,
transportation, etc.)
 High Moisture Corn
• Some studies have shown higher
digestibility of diets fed wet vs. dry
• Wet diets spoil more readily
• Most advantage is probably from limiting
feed wastage
• Performance differences are seldom shown
Ensiled High Moisture Corn vs.
Dry Corn for Swine
Performance compared to dry corn.
Dry Corn = 100

1956 1958 1958 1960 1960 1961

ADG 103 105 100 103 98 98
F/G 108 104 111 105 101 107
 Conclusions: H.M. vs Dry Corn
• High Moisture can be = to dry corn
• Not generally better for swine
• Use therefore depends on other factors
 Factors influencing choice of
high moisture corn
• Availability of fuel for drying
• Equipment to dry or ensile
• Harvest time requirements (speed, etc.)
• Equipment or labor to feed every day
• Costs - all considered of each system
• Compatibility with present program
• Flexibility of the program