This study was conducted to determine the effect of hay alfalfa supplementation (Medicago sativa L.) in different basal feeds on the feed intake (FI), live weight (LW), Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), and income of Hybrid Duck. In vivo trial was conducted with 120 MA hybrid ducks (Mojosari x Alabio), based on completely randomized design (CRD). Three (3) treatments and 6 replications with each repetition consisted of 5ducks. The treatments were P1 = radom mixed feed, P2 = 90% radom mixed feed + 10% hay alfalfa and P3 = 90% alternative feed + 10% alfalfa hay. Feed was obtained in dry matter but offered as fed. Feed and drinking water was offered ad libitum. The observed variables included feed consumption, live weight, feed conversion ratio (FCR), and income over feed cost. The data obtained were analyzed with the application of Statistical Product for Service Solution (SPSS) version 22 and if there was significant differences in treatment it would be further tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). The results showed that 10% alfalfa supplementation in free mixed feeds and alternative feeds showed a significant effect (P <0.05) on the value of feed consumption, but not with the other variables. Based on these results it can be concluded that three type of feed has similar potential as feed for duck. However, radom mixed feed treatment with 10% alfalfa hay supplementation (P2) is the most optimum treatment among the other treatment feeds, due to the highest live weight income value.
The aimed of this research was to determine effect of Supplementation of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) on different basal feeds for hybrid duck performance. This research was conducted by in vivo method with 120 MA (Mojosari x Alabio) of hybrid ducks type. The method was being used in this research include 4 treatments and 6 repetitions with 5 ducks each repetition. The treatment consisteds of P1 = Commercial feed 100 %, P2 = Alternative feed 100 %, P3 = Commercial Feed 90 % + supplementation of fresh alfalfa 10 % and P4 = Alternative feed 90 % + supplementation of fresh alfalfa 10 %. Feed and water was offered Ad libitum. The Observed variables were feed consumption, body weight gain and feed conversion ratio (FCR). The data was analyzed by the Program of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22. Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) analyzed was implanted for significant differences data. The results showed that 10 % alfalfa supplementation in commercial feeds and alternative feeds have significant lower/higher (P <0.05) value of feed consumption, weight gain and FCR value. Based on these results it can be concluded that commercial feed without alfalfa supplementation was the most optimal treatment of other treatment feeds for hybrid duck performance.
Peking duck is one of the superior ducks that breeders are interested in keeping. Maintaining broiler ducks often occurs with several obstacles including mortality, high feed conversion and target body weight couldn’t achieve. The use of probiotics generally gives a positive response on livestock performance. This study aims to determine the performance of local Peking ducks with the addition of commercial probiotics (Probac) with different levels. The study used an experimental method with a completely randomized design with 4 treatments and 5 replications. Experimental level with P0 (without probiotics), P1 (1g/kg feed probiotics), P2 (2g/kg feed probiotics), P3 (3kg/kg feed probiotics) The variables observed were body weight, feed conversion and mortality. The best results showed that the use of a commercial probiotic (Probac) with a P2 level (2g/kg feed) had an effect on body weight, but had no effect on feed conversion and mortality in local Peking ducks. It is recommended to use a commercial probiotic (Probac) at a dose of 2g/kg of feed to increase the performance of local Peking ducks
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.