Development of Animal Feed from Waste to Wealth using Napier Grass and Palm Acid Oil (PAO) from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICCSE 2018

Development of Animal Feed from Waste to Wealth using Napier Grass and Palm Acid Oil (PAO) from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Farah Amalina Ishaka, Muhammad Haziq Jamila, Abdul Syukor Abd Razaka*, Nurul Huwaida Anuar Zamania, Mohd Rashid Ab Hamidb a

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources, Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Gambang, Pahang.Malaysia. b Faculty Industrial Management, Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Gambang, Pahang. Malaysia.

Abstract This study is to investigate the effectiveness of feeding cattle with a mixture of palm acid oil (PAO) from palm oil mill effluent (POME), water lettuce, coconut waste and Napier grass. These materials will be mixed and form a feed formulation. This study also wants to develop a cattle feed that will help to reduce the water lettuce and coconut waste negative impact to the environment. Besides that, the best formulation of the cattle feed will be determined. The amount of each material will be different for each formula. This cattle feed will use the waste to follow the Green Technology. The formulation of the feed is based from Department of Veterinary Services Feeding Guide book. This study is focus on reducing the negative impact to the environment by utilizing the waste of POME, coconut waste and water lettuce. There are three formulation that was tested on cattle to determine the most suitable formulation. The formulation has different amount of each material. The nutrient in each formulation was calculated based on feeding guides by Department of Veterinary entitled nutrient composition of Malaysian feed materials and guides to feeding of cattle and goats. There are four cattle that was involved in this study. Three cattle were fed with the formulation. Meanwhile, the other one was fed with its regular feeds which is Napier Grass only and act as the control. The result obtained will be compared with the control cattle. The feed intake of each cattle was recorded. The result shows that the formulation is good for high growth performance of the cattle compare to the regular feeds. This is because the formulation has more nutrients in it. In fact, it has more nutrient than the cattle need to grow. The control cattle did not gain as much as formulation A. Thus, this prove that the formulation is effective compare to the regular feeds and it is cheaper. Apart from that, the high growth performance can help to cater the high demand of meats consumption. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Chemical Sciences and Engineering: Advance and New Materials, ICCSE 2018. Keywords: Cattle feeds, palm acid oil (PAO), Napier grass, water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.), coconut waste (Cocos nucifera)

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-016-921-1143; fax: +6-09-549-2931. E-mail address: [email protected] 2214-7853 © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Chemical Sciences and Engineering: Advance and New Materials, ICCSE 2018.

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

1619

1. Introduction The palm oil industry is identified as one of the agricultural industries in Malaysia that generates the highest pollution load into rivers throughout the country. Palm oil process is carried out using large quantities of water in mills where oil is extracted from the palm fruits. Throughout the extraction of palm oil from fresh fruit, about 50% of the water produced palm oil mill effluent (POME). POME consists of suspended solids and dissolves solids which are left after anaerobic treatment from the palm oil mill. Since no chemicals are added during the extraction process, POME is non-toxic waste. However, it will cause environmental issues due to the reduced oxygen in the aquatic system. Due to the large amount of POME production annually, the amount of sludge increases, respectively. POME is an extremely polluting wastewater with high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Fresh POME is in the form of thick brownish in colour colloidal slurry of water, oil and fine cellulosic fruit residues. Each tonne of crude palm oil (CPO) produced, about an average of 0.9 1.5 mз POME is generated [1]. Crude palm oil is obtained from the mesocarp of the palm fruit. It must be processed before it is used in edible applications. The process involves refining, bleaching and deodorizing the oil. There are two types of refining which is physical and alkaline refining. Physical refining involves steam distillation under the vacuum while alkaline refining involves neutralization with alkali such as caustic soda. One of the by-product of alkaline refining is soap stock, which contains some emulsified neutral oil. The soap stock is easily separated from the neutralized oil by centrifugal separation. Acidification of the soap stock gives the acid oil. The main components of palm acid oil (PAO) are free fatty acids (FFA) over 50%, neutral oil, with less than 3% moisture and other impurities. PAO can be used for making laundry soaps, animal feed formulation, and bio-fuel (bio-diesel) [2]. Livestock that are included in the category ruminant are cows, sheep, buffaloes, goats and deer. Ruminants subsector are in small-scale and generally produced by small-holder farmers. The industry grew relatively slowly in 1996-2002 but began to grow rapidly in 2005-2012 thanks to the Malaysian government's efforts. However, the selfsufficiency level of ruminants is still less than 30% due to higher demand than the supply by local procedures. Malaysia needs to increase livestock production to meet at least 50% of the local market needs [3]. Meat demand is expected to increase from 1.4 million tonnes in 2010 to 1.8 million metric tonnes by 2020 with growth 2.4% per year [4]. Thus, cattle in Malaysia should be fed with a nutritious food so that it grows healthily. Water lettuce lives floating on the surface of water that does not have flowing or calm movements such as lakes, mines, ponds, swamps, drains, irrigation and paddy fields. It has a capillary root that dives into the water that acts as a nutrient absorber. The leaves of the minarets are shaped like rosettes like roses or cabbage trees. The water is rich in potassium, which consists of potassium chloride and potassium sulphate. Water lettuce is also use in decorating by fans of aquatic plan. However, if the production of the water lettuce is not control, it can be harmful to the lake or river. The water lettuce tends to cover the surface of the lake and thus preventing the sunlight from penetrating through [5]. The present of water lettuce will increase the rate of incoming nutrient such as nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. When water lettuce dies, they sink to the bottom of the lake and decompose [19]. The nutrients contained in that organic matter are converted into inorganic form by microorganisms. This decomposition process consumes oxygen, which reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen. The depleted oxygen levels in turn may lead to fish kills and a range of other effects reducing biodiversity. In the long run, the lake will be very shallow and overgrown with emerging rooted plant life. As the result, the lake is experiencing a eutrophication [6]. In Malaysia, much of the agricultural land is devoted to the coconut plantation. However, as an industry, coconut negligibly contributes to the overall economy of the Malaysia. In 2009, the total domestic coconut production was estimated around 0.459 million tonnes. Plantation, trimming, processing and consumption of coconut fruits produce a significant amount of biomass. The major contributors are coconut husk, coconut shell, coconut frond and coconut empty bunches with total amount of 0.166 million tonnes, 0.735 million tonnes, 0.103 million tonnes and 0.022 million tonnes, respectively. These coconut wastes can be gasified to produce heat and energy [7].

1620

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

2. Literature Review 2.1. Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) POME, despite its biodegradability, it is cannot be discharged without being first treated as it is acidic and contains an easily inseparable waste oil using a conventional gravity-based system. This oily mixture requires a lot of oxygen before it can be fully described, and this phenomenon is called to have a high biochemical oxygen demand, and raw POME sometimes has a BOD up to 100 times higher than domestic sewage [4]. Because POME still contains a large amount of organic matter even when treated, it still imposes demand on the environment. Microbes in water take dissolved oxygen as they digest organic matter. The demand for oxygen known as BOD is usually measured in milligrams per liter (mg/l) and is commonly used as an indicator of organic quality or organic pollution levels of water. Basically, higher BODs mean worse quality, and vice versa. As a result, it has been observed that the microbial population increases in proportion to the amount of food available. In such a situation, microbial action will take dissolved oxygen more quickly than water-soluble atmospheric oxygen. Apparently, other fish and aquatic organisms may die because the water body has been exhausted by its oxygen [4]. 2.2. Palm Acid Oil (PAO) Palm Acid Oil (PAO) is a by-product of palm oil refineries. It consists of FFA (over 50%) and neutral oil, with 23% humidity and other impurities. It is very similar to Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD), but FFA generally lower. The relative proportion of FFA to neutral oils is usually not very important, since no affecting its fitness for use. In most cases the smell and color are more important. Main use of PAO is in animal feed, in the manufacture of soap and to produce distilled fatty acids [2]. Palm acid oil is produce from the refining of the crude palm oil. The refining is divided by two which is physical refining and alkaline refining. The alkaline refining process involves the neutralization with alkali and produce soap stock. Then the acidification of the soap tock by using sulphuric acid gives palm acid oil (PAO). The main component of PAO is moisture, neutral oil and free fatty acid. It has a low peroxide value that which means low rancid taste. Other than that, the iodine value in PAO indicate that there is reasonable amount of unsaturated fatty acid. The saponification value is a measure of the average molecular weight of all the fatty acid present in the PAO. The unsaponifiable matter indicate that PAO is failing to form soap when blended with sodium peroxide [2]. 2.3. Water Lettuce Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.) are floating aquatic plants grown for their chartreuse green foliage arranged in compact rosettes. Called Nile Cabbage, they belong to the Arum family and consist of a single species. Although originally from Africa, water lettuce is now found in most freshwater bodies in tropical and subtropical areas. Water lettuce have many green leaves that are feathery, dusty. The leaves are covered with very fine hair and are arranged in a circle pattern from the center of the plant. Leaves are 1 to 6 inches wide and have large veins flowing in length. The flowers are rarely seen [6]. Water lettuce prefer quiet waters and overcrowding. They do better in shadow area, but too little light will make the leaves turn a darker green. In a very sunny location they may have a bleached look. As tropical plants, they need warmth to grow well. Cold winters will kill them. They also used as a pool or lake decorator by fans of aquatic plants. They do well in koi and goldfish ponds. However, they provide a haven for mosquito larvae, Mansonia mosquitoes are specially adapted for living in the root system of water lettuce [6]. Water lettuce 12prefer quiet waters and overcrowding. They do better in shadow area, but too little light will make the leaves turn a darker green. In a very sunny location they may have a bleached look. As tropical plants, they need warmth to grow well. Cold winters will kill them. They also used as a pool or lake decorator by fans of aquatic plants. They do well in koi and goldfish ponds. However, they provide a haven for mosquito larvae, Mansonia mosquitoes are specially adapted for living in the root system of water lettuce [8].

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

1621

2.4. Eutrophication Freshwater eutrophication is a global problem caused primarily by phosphorus discharges from human activities, particularly agricultural use of phosphorus fertilizer. Water quality in lakes is largely influenced by the presence of nutrients. The present of water lettuce will increase the rate of incoming nutrient and sediments in a lake. Hence, it will lead to eutrophication stages of a lake. Eutrophication is when water bodies become enriched with minerals and nutrients that induce excessive crop growth and algae [9]. It is a natural aging process and can be thought of as an inevitable and continual aging process of a lake. This process may result in oxygen depletion of the water body. 2.5. Coconut Waste A coconut is the fruit of the coconut palm, Cocos nucifera. As Malaysian often used coconut milk in their delicacies, there is high coconut waste that is produce from the coconut milk. The flesh of coconuts is squeeze until the milk is out and thus the waste is left. The waste is commonly thrown away without realizing its have a high dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP) that is useful as animal feedstock. Coconut waste is originally having delicious smell to it. However, after a couple of days, it will start to smell sour and will become watery. Before the coconut waste is use as animal feedstock, it will have to be dry in the sun for about 4 to 3 hours to reduce the high content of fats in it. Besides, it is also helping to increase the amount of protein in it [10]. 2.5. Napier Grass Napier grass produces a very little seed and it is usually vegetative propagated through by cutting the stem that consist at least three nodes, two of them will be buried in rows. The row width should be ranges from 50 to 200cm and the distance within rows is between 50 until 100cm. After planting, Napier grass grows strongly and can reach 4m in height in just 3 months. Napier grass grows rapidly and has high annual productivity that depends on climate, especially temperature and rain. Equally important, Napier grass requires high fertilizer and regular water supply [11]. Napier grass is one of the highest yielding tropical grasses. It is very versatile that it can be grown under a wide range of system and condition whether dry or wet. Napier grass is also known as Elephant grass or Urganda grass. Its scientific name is Pennisetum purpureum. Napier grass have several types which is Napier Taiwan, Napier India, Napier Zanzibar, Napier Kobe, Napier 3rd Generation and Napier Merah (Red). Yield for six types of Napier at different cutting period. Napier Zanzibar at 35 days cutting period contains higher Crude Protein (CP) and Metabolized Energy (ME) which is 19.43% and 9.09% respectively compared to other types. However, at 42 days cutting period, Crude Protein (CP) and Metabolized Energy (ME) for all types of Napier are decreased. (Mohammed et al., 2015). Among these types, Napier Zanzibar have more nutrients value compare to the other types. Napier grass is very good when young and leafy. However, it becomes rough and non-contagious when it is mature [11]. 2.6. The Kedah-Kelantan (KK) Cattle The Kedah-Kelantan (KK) cattle account for roughly 85% of the total number of beef cattle in Malaysia. It is mainly kept by small farmers for meat production because of its small and compact body, and low maintenance requirement. (DVS, 2014). The KK beef cattle are a small sized cattle breed vary in mature weight from about 300 to 312 kg in male and from 229 to 240 kg in female. They are well adapted to the Malaysian environment and are highly tolerant to parasites. The KK cattle are known to have high fertility and calving rate [12]. 3. Experimental This research is divided into three stages. The first stage is the briefing regarding the research by studying the literature review to determine the objective. After all the objective is determine, the planning process can be done. The planning is focusing on to obtain the palm acid oil (POA) from the POME, Napier grass, water lettuce and coconut waste. Other than that, the location to obtain the PAO is also determine. On the second stage, the research is focusing on the project preparation. The types of grass that is chosen for this study is Napier Zanzibar. Napier

1622

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

Zanzibar is chosen as it is one of the high yield compared to the other type of Napier grass. It is very versatile that it can be grown under a wide range of system and condition whether dry or wet. Napier grass have all the nutrient that the cattle need such as magnesium, phosphorus and calcium. It also has high dry matter (DM) that determine the amount of crude protein and crude fiber in it. This second stage also the stage where the type of cattle is determined. The type of cattle that is chosen is Kedah-Kelantan (KK) cattle. These cattle are widely grown in Malaysia. The KK cattle are well adapted to Malaysian environment. It is also highly tolerance to parasite. Additionally, the KK cattle have high fertility and calving rate and the meat production is also high which is 45% of is body weight. In the collection and analysis section, four KK cattle will be involved in this study. These cattle will be weighed before the cattle is fed. There will be three cattle that will eat the feed. The other cattle will not be fed by this mixture however the cattle will only eat the regular feeds. This data will be collected every day in one week. The three cattle will be fed with different formulation to determine the best formulation that will have the highest growth performance to the cattle. The formulation is shown at the Table 1. The nutrient in the formulation in Table 1 was calculated based on Nutrient Composition of Malaysian Feed Materials And Guides To Feeding Of Cattles And Goats by Department of Veterinary Services, (2008) [18]. The formulation is calculated based on the nutrient that is required by the cattle to gain the 200g per day.

A B C Control

Napier Grass (kg) 7 6 5 10

Table 1: The feed formulations Coconut Water Palm Waste Lettuce Acid Oil (kg) (kg) (kg) 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 2.5 1 -

TOTAL 10 10 10 10

Palm Acid Oil (PAO), Napier grass, water lettuce and coconut waste are collected from their location. After all material is collected, the material need to be prepared before mixing. Napier grass need to be chopped and water lettuce need to be cut into smaller pieces. On the other hand, coconut waste is dried under the sun for about 4 to 3 hours to reduce the high content of fats in it. Napier grass and water lettuce are collect fresh from their location. They will be kept fresh so that the nutrient in it is preserved and the cattle feeds that is developed is in good quality. Water lettuce is cut by hand into a smaller piece in order from them too combine well with Napier grass, coconut waste and PAO. Besides that, every part of the water lettuce is rich in nutrient [6]. Hence, all part of water lettuce including its root is used in the cattle feeds. The Napier grass is chopped using a chopping machine at the first stage. The coconut waste that was obtained need to be dried under the sun for 3 to 4 hours. The coconut waste was moist before they are dried. Then after 4 hours, the moisture in it is reduce and the coconut waste is dry. Then the water lettuce is cut into a smaller piece for them to well combine with the other materials. Once the material is prepared, the material is mixed thoroughly. Since there is three different formulation, there will be different amount of each material according to the formulation. The amount of Napier grass will be decrease for formulation by formulation. On the other hands, the amount of waste use will be increase per formulation compare to the other formulation. After water lettuce is chopped, they should be stored in a cool room. This is important to ensure that the nutrient in the water lettuce is preserve and always fresh. There is a total of 10kg for each cattle to eats. There will be fed twice a day which is in the morning and on the evening. All cattle will have easy access to water since water is important to maintain their body temperature. All cattle will be monitor. Each of them should finish all 10kg of their feeds. However, if they did not finish their feeds, the leftover will be weight and taken as feed refuse by the cattle. The cattle will be weight in the morning every day before they have their meal in the morning. 4. Results and Discussion The data was collected at the morning before the cattle have their meal. The weight of the cattle was recorded using a weighing balances. Each cattle were fed with a total of 10kg per cattle. Cattle A, B and C is fed with formulation A, B and C respectively. Meanwhile cattle D was fed with its regular feeds which is Napier grass only.

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

1623

Cattle D was a control cattle that will be compared with cattle A, B and C. In the morning, the cattle were fed with 5kg of feeds and in the evening, they will consume another 5kg. They have full access of the feed at the same time so that they will eats at the same time. Apart from that, they were provided with full access of water to prevent them from dehydrate and to control their body temperature. The health of each cattle was monitored every day. The behavior of the cattle was also monitored and recorded. However, there was an amount of feed that is refuse by the cattle. The data was recorded by weighing the feed refuse and thus the amount of feed intake can be calculated by retracting the feed refuse. During the feeding process, cattle A, B and D (control) were in good condition. They seem active and drink water regularly. They also lay down to ruminate. This process is important as all type of ruminants need to ruminate. The feed that was eaten will bring back up from the rumen to the mouth [17]. 4.1. Feed Refuse Figure 1 shows the amount of feed refuse of each cattle; A, B, C and D. Each cattle show different amount of feed refuse for each day.

Feed Refuse by each Cattle

4.00

Weight (kg)

3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

1

2 3 Cattle A

4 5 Cattle B

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Cattle C Cattle D (control) No of Days

Fig. 1. Feed refuses by each cattle.

Figure 1, it showed that the amount of feed refuse was higher for Cattle A, B and C. For cattle D (control) there was a smaller amount of the feed refuse by it. From the previous study by Rahman and Nakagawa, they mentioned that ruminants might be refusing a several amounts of feeds on the early stage. This is because the feeds were new to them and they need to give time for them to adapt with the new feeds [13]. Figure 1 shows the amount of feed refuse by each cattle. The amount of feeds that was refuse by cattle A were high from the first day until the sixth day. The cattle A takes about six days for it to familiar with the new feeds as mention by Rahman and Nakagawa. On the seventh day cattle A start to adapt with the new feeds. From the seventh day, the cattle A starts to reduce its feed refuse and surprisingly the feed refuses by cattle A at day twelve was zero. This prove that the cattle A begins to receive Formulation A with a good result. Meanwhile for cattle B, it begins to tolerate with the Formulation B at the seventh day. The feeds refuse was decreases compare to the first and second day. The previous study was tested on goat that shows the feed refuse on the early stage was higher and start to reduce within time [13]. This condition is normal for a ruminant to refuse the new feed slightly higher on the early stage. On the other hands, cattle C shows a high amount of feeds refuse compare to the other cattle. From the third day, the feed refuse continues to raise and it was recorded that highest feed refuse was on the fifth day which is 3.66 kg. The reasons why the cattle refuse the Formulation C is because on the fifth day, cattle C was having diarrhea. Cattle C was having diarrhea 3 times in two weeks. The cattle C was having diarrhea on the 5th, 9th and 13th day. However, on the previous study by Rahman and Nakagawa in 2015 showed that it is common for small ruminants to have diarrhea [13]. Meanwhile, cattle D which is the control cattle did not refuse too much of its feeds. Since cattle D was fed with its regular feeds, cattle D was not facing the same situation with the other cattle. Even tough cattle D did not consume any new feeds, it still has a several amounts of feed refuse. This was because it is normal to have a several amounts of feed refuse as said by Dun and Ngo Tien in their previous study.

1624

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

4.2. Feed Intake

Feed Intake by each cattle

Weight (kg)

10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 1

2

Cattle A

3

4

5

Cattle B

6

7

8

Cattle C

9 10 11 12 13 14

No of Days

Cattle D (control)

Fig. 2. Feed intake by each cattle

Figure 2 showed that the amount of feed intake was lower for Cattle A, B and C at the early stage. Meanwhile, cattle D (control) had a higher amount of the feed intake by it. From the previous study it is said that ruminants might be take a smaller amount of feeds when they change their regular feeds on the early stage. However, their feed intake will be increase within time as they are able to adapt with the new feeds [13]. Since every feed have their own unique taste and texture, the cattle can identify between their regular feed and the new feeds. The bar chart shows the amount of feed intake by each cattle. The amount of feeds that was taken by cattle A were lower from the first day until the third day. The cattle A takes about three days for it to familiar with the new feeds as mention by Rahman and Nakagawa in 2015. On the fourth day cattle A start to adapt with the new feeds. From the fourth day, the cattle A starts to increase its feed intake and surprisingly the feed intake by cattle A at day twelve was 100%. This prove that the cattle A begins to receive Formulation A positively. On the seventh day, cattle A consumes more feed compare to the cattle D (control). These added materials gave a multiple flavour and texture to the cattle [14]. PAO gave the Formulation A creamy flavour that are the cattle favourite taste [15]. Hence, it will boost the appetite of the cattle and as a result there are 100% feed intake by cattle A at day twelve. Moreover, the presence of coconut waste also gave the milky flavour to the cattle [16]. Meanwhile for cattle B, it begins to tolerate with the Formulation B at the sixth day. The feeds taken was increase a lot more compare to the early stage. This condition is normal for a ruminant to refuse the new feed slightly higher on the early stage [13]. Cattle B shows a significant increase of feed taken compare to cattle D (control). This condition is similar with Formulation A as they both contains PAO and coconut waste that will enhance the appetite of the cattle [10]. On the other hands, cattle C shows a small amount of feeds intake compare to the other cattle. From the third day, the feed intake was decrease and it was recorded that lowest feed intake was on the fifth day which is 6.34kg. It is suspected that the cattle were having diarrhea due to the high amount of coconut waste in the Formulation C [13]. However, in the previous study by Rahman and Nakagawa, it is mentioned that the diarrhea was common for the young growing ruminant to have occasionally. Meanwhile, cattle D which is the control cattle consume a favourable amount of its feeds. Cattle D did not face the same situation where it need to adapt for the new feeds as cattle D was fed with its regular feeds which is Napier grass only. However, the feed intake is not as much as Formulation A and B. According to Dung, et al., 2009, the flavour and texture in the cattle feed is important to enhance the cattle appetite. As mention above, cattle D only fed with Napier grass and thus it only gives the cattle a single flavour and texture. 4.3. Nutrients From the formulation, we can calculate the nutrient in the feed that each formulation has. This step is important to determine whether the cattle is having enough nutrient or another. From the literature review, the amount of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP) and crude fibre (CP) for every 1kg is obtained from Department of Veterinary

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

1625

Services. The nutrient is shown at the table below. Every cattle need the nutrient to gain its weight. The amount of nutrient should be sufficient. Each material contains different amount of nutrient. The amount of each material in the formulation will affect on how much the nutrient have in each formulation. The total nutrient for each formulation is shown on Table 2 to compare with the nutrient that the cattle required to gain their weight up to 200g per day. From the Table 2, all the formulation shows that the nutrients are more than the cattle needs. Material Napier Grass Coconut Waste Water Lettuce Palm Acid Oil

Table 2. Nutrient of each material per kg. DM(Kg) CP(Kg) 16.90 12.70 19.00 6.40 3.90 16.50 53.00 3.30

CF(Kg) 24.10 33.10 12.40 5.20

Table 3 shown Formulation A was the highest compare to the other formulation. In the previous study by Dung and Cuong, it is said that the more nutrient that the ruminants receive, the more benefits that the ruminants will receive. Hence, the Formulation A is the best formulation as it has more nutrient compare to the other formulation. Table 3. Nutrient of each formulation per kg. FORMULATION DM(Kg) CP(Kg) A 1.94 0.26 B 1.89 0.24 C 1.76 0.23 Control 1.69 0.21 Nutrient Required 1.04 0.12

CF(Kg) 0.42 0.41 0.38 0.41 0.22

4.4. Growth Performance

Weight of Cattle (kg)

After the weight of each cattle is obtained, the different weight in each day is calculated and shown in table below. The different weight is to tabulate the growth performance curve that will show the growth of each cattle. However, the growth performance curve is tabulated using the cumulative value of the weight different. Each cattle will be compared with control cattle which is cattle D. From the graph below, it shows that all cattle have a growth performance. However, this study is to determine the suitable formulation of waste and Napier grass in the cattle feed to achieve a maximum growth rate. To do that, the comparison between each formulation need to compare with the control cattle. Figure 3 shows the growth performance of all cattle.

Growth Performance

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 1 A2

3

4B5

6

7C 8

9

10 11 12 13 No 14 of Days CONTROL

Fig. 3. Growth performance curve.

Figure 3 shows the overall growth performance of each cattle. The growth rate of cattle A was lower than cattle D at the first five days. This was because cattle A had a high amount of feed refuse. When cattle did not eat their feed more, their growth would be slower [17]. As mention by Dung and Cuong in their previous study, a cattle feeds intake will give effect to the cattle growth performance. Therefore, growth performance of cattle A was slower compare to the cattle D as the feed intake of the cattle A was not much. This explained why the growth performance of cattle D was higher than cattle A.

1626

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

However, from the seventh day, the growth performance of the cattle A shows an increased growth and exceed the cattle D. Meanwhile cattle D also shows an increase in the growth, however the increase of the growth performance was slower compared to the cattle A. From the figure above, the cattle A has increase more weight compared to cattle D as the cattle A received more nutrient. Based on Table 2, it is indeed that the Formulation A have more nutrient than Napier grass itself. This explains why the cattle A have a high growth performance compared to cattle D. Furthermore, the comparison of cattle B between cattle D shows that there is no significant different. From the Table 2, it shows that the nutrient in the Formulation B is higher than the nutrient in Napier grass. However due to the high amount of feed refuse by cattle B, the nutrient of Formulation B cannot be gain completely by cattle B [13]. Meanwhile, cattle D shows a little amount of feed refuse. This scenario was justified by Dung and Cuong which is the feed intake affect the growth of the cattle. It is important to provide a diet that will result in a high feed intake and rich in nutrients. The cattle C has a slightly lower growth performance compare to cattle D. As mention before, cattle C was having diarrhea 3 times in a week. Dun and Cuong write that diarrhea can cause a decreasing appetite of a cattle. It is suspected that the cause of the diarrhea was the formulation that the only have the highest amount of coconut waste in it. From the data obtained, it can be concluded that Formulation A is the best formulation compared to the other formulation as the cattle A shows a positive result. 4.5. Waste Utilization The coconut waste was obtained supplier of coconut milk. The data of the coconut waste that was produce from the Santan Segar Pawi are shown at the table below. Table 4. The summary of coconut waste dump by Santan Segar Pawi (kg), March 2018. WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 COCONUT WASTE 11.7 31.5 32.1 36.7 37.4

TOTAL 149.4

Table 4, the total of the coconut waste in March 2018 was 149.4kg. Formulation A used one kilogram of coconut waste. Hence in one week there will be a total of 14 kg of coconut waste used in formulation A only. If the formulation A are continuing to be implemented for one month, there will be a total used 31kg which is 20.75% from 149.4kg of the coconut waste that was dumped. This prove that the formulation did help in utilizing the waste. Moreover, the amount of coconut waste and water lettuce used is increase depending on the weight of the cattle. For example, if the weight of the cattle is 300kg, the cattle will eat a 10% of its body weight which is total of 30kg in one day. There should be 3kg of coconut waste in the formulation and it is about 42kg of coconut waste will be used as the cattle feeds in two weeks. Hence, if the formulation is implemented by large-scale farmers, the amount of waste that is utilized can be increase. 5. Conclusion From the study, there are several conclusions that can be made. Cattles need some good feeds. A good feed is not just about the nutrient itself. A good feed covers the quality of the feeds which means it is compacted with a lot of nutrition and not to forget the feeds that can increase the feed intake. The feed should have the nutrient that meets the nutrient requirement of the cattle. If the feeds have a high nutrient content, it can help in increasing the growth performance of the cattle. This are supported with the previous research by Dung and Cuong where it said that the more the feed intake, the more the cattle can gain weight. To increase the feeds intake, the feeds should be made as tasty as the cattle love it. In my study, coconut waste and palm acid oil give a creamy taste to the cattle feeds. Hence, cattle A and B consume a large amount of the formulation compared to the cattle D. Their increase in appetite result in smaller feed refused. Meanwhile cattle D has high feed refused. The feeds refuse by cattle D was weight in about 14% of the feeds that was refused. Due to that, the nutrient that is provide to the cattle D also reduce. The lower the feed intake, the lower the nutrient receive by the cattle [17]. However, the nutrient receive can be increased by providing the cattle with a high nutrient of feeds. In my study, water lettuce has a high nutrient which is as high as Napier grass. Hence, the combination of these two ingredients will provide more nutrient even the amount of the feed intake is small. Nutrient in the feed is important to ensure the cattle grow

F.A. Ishak et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 19 (2019) 1618–1627

1627

healthily. Dry matter (DM) in the feeds will ensure that the digestion of the cattle is good and crude protein (CP) is to increase the weight of the cattle [20]. To identify which feeds, have more quality, the farmers should investigate the CP, DM and CF that the feed have. Acknowledgements This study was supported by Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), and Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia. The authors are grateful to Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources (FKASA), UMP for the fully support for this research project. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Al-kayiem, H. H. (2013). Experimental Study Of Palm Oil Mill Effluent And Oil Palm Frond Waste Mixture As An Alternative Biomass Fuel 2 . Literature Review 2 . 1 . Characteristic of palm oil mill effluent, 8(6), 703–712. Zin, M. (2006). Process Design in Degumming and Bleaching of Palm Oil Research Vote No : 74198 Centre of Lipids Engineering and Applied Research. Design, 24–31. Hashim, F. A. (2015). Stretegies to Strenghten Livestock Industry in Malaysia. Madaki, Y. S., & Lau, S. (2013). Palm oil Effluent (POME) from Malaysia Palm Oil Mills: Waste or Resource. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 2(6), 1138–1155. Ministry of Agriculture and Agro Based Industry Malaysia. (2011). Dasar Agromakanan Negara 2011 - 2020, 135. Gusain, R., & Suthar, S. (2017). Potential of aquatic weeds (Lemna gibba, Lemna minor, Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia sp.) in biofuel production. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 109, 233–241. Sulaiman, S. A., Roslan, R., Inayat, M., & Yasin Naz, M. (2017). Effect of blending ratio and catalyst loading on co-gasification of wood chips and coconut waste. Journal of the Energy Institute, 1–7. Osmond, R., & Stephen Johnson. (2006). Water lettuce. Primefact 251, (September 2006). Silvenius, F., Grönroos, J., Kankainen, M., Kurppa, S., Mäkinen, T., & Vielma, J. (2017). Impact of feed raw material to climate and eutrophication impacts of Finnish rainbow trout farming and comparisons on climate impact and eutrophication between farmed and wild fish. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1467–1473. D’Amato, A., Fasoli, E., & Righetti, P. G. (2012). Harry Belafonte and the secret proteome of coconut milk. Journal of Proteomics, 75(3), 914–920. Mohammed, I. Y., Abakr, Y. A., Kazi, F. K., Yusup, S., Alshareef, I., & Chin, S. A. (2015). Comprehensive characterization of Napier grass as a feedstock for thermochemical conversion. Energies, 8(5), 3403–3417. Abdulla, I., Arshad, F. M., Bala, B K., Bach, N. L., & Mohammadi, S. (2016). Management of Beef Cattle Production in Malaysia : A Step Forward to Sustainability. Rahman, M. M., Rahman, M. R., Nakagawa, T., & Abdullah, R. B. (2015). Effects of wet soya waste supplementation on the intake , growth and reproduction of goats fed Napier grass. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 199, 104–112. Department of Veterinary Services, D. (2008). Nutrient Composition of Malaysian Feed Materials And Guides To Feeding Of Cattles And Goats. Feeding Guide Series. Limon & Ahari (2012). Recent Advances In Utilization Of Oil Palm By-Products As Animal Feed, 211–219. Rodsamran, P., & Sothornvit, R. (2018). Bioactive coconut protein concentrate films incorporated with antioxidant extract of mature coconut water. Food Hydrocolloids, 79, 243–252. Dung, N. T., Cuong, P. K., & Somers, R. (2009). Nutrition and feeding management in dairy cattle. Department of Veterinary Services, D. (2008). Nutrient Composition of Malaysian Feed Materials And Guides To Feeding Of Cattles And Goats. Feeding Guide Series. Departament of agriculture, fisheries and foresty B. Q. (2013). Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes, (April), 4. McGrath, J., Duval, S. M., Tamassia, L. F. M., Kindermann, M., Stemmler, R. T., de Gouvea, V. N., … Celi, P. (2018). Nutritional strategies in ruminants: A lifetime approach. Research in Veterinary Science, 116(September 2017), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.09.011.