108

THE EFFECT OF CHITOSAN IN THE RATION

ON TEGAL DUCK PERFORMANCE

Eli SAHARA1, Tuti WIDJASTUTI2, Roostita L. BALIA2, ABUN2

1Faculty of Agriculture, University Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia

2Faculty of Animal Husbandry, University Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia

Corresponding author email: elisahara.unsri@gmail.com

Abstract The aim of the study is to examine the effects of chitosan in the ration on Tegal duck performance. The dose of chitosan used ranging from 0.0%, 0.5%, 2% and 2.5%, mixed into the basal ration. The basal diet used iso-protein and iso-energy, with protein content of 15.34% and Metabolic Energy 2809 kcal / kg (NRC, 1994). Parameters measured were feed intake, duck day production (DDP), total egg weight and feed conversion. This study uses a completely randomized design (CRD) consisting of 4 treatments and 5 replicates and each replicate consisted of two ducks. The basal diet (R0) = without chitosan as a control, R1 = 0.5% chitosan, R2 = 2% chitosan, and R3 = 2.5% chitosan. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16 statistical program (Statistical Package for Social Science). Results indicated that chitosan showed no significant effect (P> 0.05) on feed consumption, duck day production, total egg weight and feed conversion. In this study, treatment of chitosan 2.5% (R2) gives the best results on day duck production, total egg weight and feed conversion. From the daily egg production (DDP), treatment R2 has a result of 59%, larger than R0 (57.76%), R1 (44.1%) and R3 (46.9%). Total egg weight for R2 = 3597.7 (73.42 g / grain) also show a greater number than the treatment R0 (2769.72), R1 (2662.46), and R3 (3403.14). On feed conversion, R2 showed the smallest (1.93) compared to R0 (3.06), R1 (7.4) and R3 (2.31). This means duck in treatment R2 more efficient of feed consumption, 1.93 kilograms to produce one kilogram of eggs. Key words: chitosan, rations, performance, Tegal ducks. INTRODUCTION Performance of duck production is highly dependent on the farm management such as seed, feed and disease prevention. Some of the advantages of duck eggs by reference are as follows: 1. Duck egg was spot used as an option to

meet community nutrition. This is due to the nutrient content of duck eggs are very complete and easy to digest. Total protein content of duck eggs is 13.10% (Winarno and Koswara, 2002);

2. Economically, the selling price of duck eggs is more expensive than chicken eggs, so it is an alternative for farmers’ additional income;

3. The advantages of duck are more resistant to disease and more tolerant of crude fiber, making it easier to choose the raw material feed.

Productivity of duck is determined by the farm management, especially feeding factors. Feed should contain nutrition according to the needs of duck, especially for basic living needs and

production. Feed can also be added with a feed supplement or feed additives to improve livestock productivity. Chitosan is poly-glicosamin, an animal fiber origin of crustaceans which are very abundant in nature. Chitosan has the characteristics of an anti-germ, antioxidants, enzymes mobilization and fat binder. If fed to livestock as feed additive, it is predicted to be able to launch the body's metabolism. Anti-bacterial characteristic of chitosan when mixed in the ration will protect feed from pathogenic bacteria contamination; inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of duck. Therefore, it would increase a large number of good bacteria to optimize digestive metabolism. Optimizing metabolism of digestive enzymes would optimize the absorption of nutrient in the small intestine. The result of this study is expected to improve the performance of the duck, so increase the productivity.

Scientific Papers. Series D. Animal Science. Vol. LIX, 2016ISSN 2285-5750; ISSN CD-ROM 2285-5769; ISSN Online 2393-2260; ISSN-L 2285-5750

MATERIA The materducks of pwere kept Size per ununits equipalso equippRations are2809 kcal/ Feed matesoybean fiand premixdoses of 0given in t(morning ais given adThe observDucks lay and weighration to thonce a westudy wereegg weightFeed consuis calculatgiven minuDaily egg is calculatethe averagproduce at (Scott, 199of the eggnumber of Feed convthe duck ainto the peggs withinThe weighindicates thin a given Data were following design (4 treatment scontinued w RESULTS Effect of TThe averagduring the

ALS AND

rial used in production in a cage c

nit is 1 x 1 pped with fped with a e prepared kg metabolierials are ish meal, cx. Chitosan %, 0.5%, 2the form oand afternod libitum. vation was eggs per u

hed each dhe ducks alek. The pare: feed intat and total fumption duted based ous the leftovproduction

ed based onge number o

a certain tim2, cited by Mgs is obtaineggs with egersion is thability to chproduction n a certain tht of the ehe average wn period exp

statisticallythe pattern

treatmentshowed signiwith Duncan

S AND DIS

Treatment ofge feed co

e study (7

METHOD

this study period (agecolony (2 dmeter2, wit

feed and drlamp as ligwith 15.34

izable energyellow cooconut meais given as

2% and 2.5%of pasta, twon), while

carried ouunit enclosuday. The lelso collecterameters m

ake, daily efeed conversuring the ston the amovers ration fn (Duck Dan the numbeof eggs entme and stateManin, 2003ned from mgg weights.

he number whange the sof one kilotime unit. egg is the weight of thepressed in gy analyzed un completes, 5 repliificant differn's multiple

SCUSSION

of Consumponsumption

weeks) in

DS

was 40 Teed 10 mon

ducks per unth a total ofrink. Cages ghting at ni4% protein gy (NRP, 200rn, rice bral, flour shtreatment w

%. Rations wo times ddrinking w

ut for 7 weeure is recoreftovers of d and weigeasured in gg productision. tudy (7 weeount of ratifor a week. y Productio

er that indicatirely on dued in percent3). Total wemultiplying

which indicasum of ratiogram (kg)

number whe eggs produgrams per eusing SPSS ly randomiicates), if rences then range test.

NS

ption Rationof ducks tall treatme

egal nths) nit). f 20 are

ight. and 04). ran,

hells with

are daily water

eks. rded

the ghed

this tion,

eks) ions ons) ates

ucks tage

eight the

ates ions ) of

hich uced egg. 16,

ized the it is

ns trial ents

rantheweThiratigraThifeeg/hwegraChratiquaronof suf

Fi EffDayThepro Thpro64.becspeBesamnumproprotreaproconalthdiffGivgooqua

nging from 6e amount ofek was 965is means thion amouams/head/dais figure is

ed consumhead/day. Theks of age,

ams (Hardjoitosan whicion is thouality of ratinmental inflprotein and

fficient for l

igure 1. Diagr

fect of Treaay Productioe average

oduction) fohis figure oduction of 63% (Seti

cause of theecies used inside geneti

mount and mber of egoduction poduced peatment witovided a betnsumption hough statifferences wiving of 2.5%od influencality of feed

6.759-7.222f feed cons.6 to 1,031.hat the exp

unt from ay. much lowmption whe local duc

in one weeosworo, 200ch acts as a ught to conion nutritioluences, so d energy avlife and prod

ram of Tegal D

atment of Eon)

of egg por 7 weeks bis slightly Alabio du

ioko, 2001e differencen the researcc factors aquality of ggs producercentage r treatmenh 2.5% chtter yield (59

figure (stically didth the other

% chitosan ice in proted because o

2 g/duck. Ifsumed by d.7 grams (Fiperiment du

137.9 t

wer than Alwhich is cks feed intaek between

01). a feed additntribute to on from ext

the predictvailable in duction of d

Ducks Feed C

Egg Produc

production between 44.

lower thauck, which 1). This e of age andch.

and the ducfeed will

ced. If seenof trial d

nt (Figurehitosan in 9%) and a s

(984.9 g/hd not show r treatmentsis thought tecting the of its charac

f converted,ducks everyigure 1). ucks spendto 147.39

labio ducks215-248

ake over 20n 900-1.100

ive in duckprotect the

treme envi-ted balancethe feed is

duck.

Consumption

ction (Duck

(duck day1 to 59%.

an the eggis 58.92 tois thoughtd the ducks

ck age, theaffect the

n from theduck eggse 2), thethe ration,

small rationhead/week),

significants (P> 0.05). to provide a

nutritionalcteristics as

, y

d 9

s 8 0 0

k e -e s

k

y

g o t s

e e e s e ,

n , t

a l s

109

THE EFFECT OF CHITOSAN IN THE RATION

ON TEGAL DUCK PERFORMANCE

Eli SAHARA1, Tuti WIDJASTUTI2, Roostita L. BALIA2, ABUN2

1Faculty of Agriculture, University Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia

2Faculty of Animal Husbandry, University Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia

Corresponding author email: elisahara.unsri@gmail.com

Abstract The aim of the study is to examine the effects of chitosan in the ration on Tegal duck performance. The dose of chitosan used ranging from 0.0%, 0.5%, 2% and 2.5%, mixed into the basal ration. The basal diet used iso-protein and iso-energy, with protein content of 15.34% and Metabolic Energy 2809 kcal / kg (NRC, 1994). Parameters measured were feed intake, duck day production (DDP), total egg weight and feed conversion. This study uses a completely randomized design (CRD) consisting of 4 treatments and 5 replicates and each replicate consisted of two ducks. The basal diet (R0) = without chitosan as a control, R1 = 0.5% chitosan, R2 = 2% chitosan, and R3 = 2.5% chitosan. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16 statistical program (Statistical Package for Social Science). Results indicated that chitosan showed no significant effect (P> 0.05) on feed consumption, duck day production, total egg weight and feed conversion. In this study, treatment of chitosan 2.5% (R2) gives the best results on day duck production, total egg weight and feed conversion. From the daily egg production (DDP), treatment R2 has a result of 59%, larger than R0 (57.76%), R1 (44.1%) and R3 (46.9%). Total egg weight for R2 = 3597.7 (73.42 g / grain) also show a greater number than the treatment R0 (2769.72), R1 (2662.46), and R3 (3403.14). On feed conversion, R2 showed the smallest (1.93) compared to R0 (3.06), R1 (7.4) and R3 (2.31). This means duck in treatment R2 more efficient of feed consumption, 1.93 kilograms to produce one kilogram of eggs. Key words: chitosan, rations, performance, Tegal ducks. INTRODUCTION Performance of duck production is highly dependent on the farm management such as seed, feed and disease prevention. Some of the advantages of duck eggs by reference are as follows: 1. Duck egg was spot used as an option to

meet community nutrition. This is due to the nutrient content of duck eggs are very complete and easy to digest. Total protein content of duck eggs is 13.10% (Winarno and Koswara, 2002);

2. Economically, the selling price of duck eggs is more expensive than chicken eggs, so it is an alternative for farmers’ additional income;

3. The advantages of duck are more resistant to disease and more tolerant of crude fiber, making it easier to choose the raw material feed.

Productivity of duck is determined by the farm management, especially feeding factors. Feed should contain nutrition according to the needs of duck, especially for basic living needs and

production. Feed can also be added with a feed supplement or feed additives to improve livestock productivity. Chitosan is poly-glicosamin, an animal fiber origin of crustaceans which are very abundant in nature. Chitosan has the characteristics of an anti-germ, antioxidants, enzymes mobilization and fat binder. If fed to livestock as feed additive, it is predicted to be able to launch the body's metabolism. Anti-bacterial characteristic of chitosan when mixed in the ration will protect feed from pathogenic bacteria contamination; inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of duck. Therefore, it would increase a large number of good bacteria to optimize digestive metabolism. Optimizing metabolism of digestive enzymes would optimize the absorption of nutrient in the small intestine. The result of this study is expected to improve the performance of the duck, so increase the productivity.

MATERIA The materducks of pwere kept Size per ununits equipalso equippRations are2809 kcal/ Feed matesoybean fiand premixdoses of 0given in t(morning ais given adThe observDucks lay and weighration to thonce a westudy wereegg weightFeed consuis calculatgiven minuDaily egg is calculatethe averagproduce at (Scott, 199of the eggnumber of Feed convthe duck ainto the peggs withinThe weighindicates thin a given Data were following design (4 treatment scontinued w RESULTS Effect of TThe averagduring the

ALS AND

rial used in production in a cage c

nit is 1 x 1 pped with fped with a e prepared kg metabolierials are ish meal, cx. Chitosan %, 0.5%, 2the form oand afternod libitum. vation was eggs per u

hed each dhe ducks alek. The pare: feed intat and total fumption duted based ous the leftovproduction

ed based onge number o

a certain tim2, cited by Mgs is obtaineggs with egersion is thability to chproduction n a certain tht of the ehe average wn period exp

statisticallythe pattern

treatmentshowed signiwith Duncan

S AND DIS

Treatment ofge feed co

e study (7

METHOD

this study period (agecolony (2 dmeter2, wit

feed and drlamp as ligwith 15.34

izable energyellow cooconut meais given as

2% and 2.5%of pasta, twon), while

carried ouunit enclosuday. The lelso collecterameters m

ake, daily efeed conversuring the ston the amovers ration fn (Duck Dan the numbeof eggs entme and stateManin, 2003ned from mgg weights.

he number whange the sof one kilotime unit. egg is the weight of thepressed in gy analyzed un completes, 5 repliificant differn's multiple

SCUSSION

of Consumponsumption

weeks) in

DS

was 40 Teed 10 mon

ducks per unth a total ofrink. Cages ghting at ni4% protein gy (NRP, 200rn, rice bral, flour shtreatment w

%. Rations wo times ddrinking w

ut for 7 weeure is recoreftovers of d and weigeasured in gg productision. tudy (7 weeount of ratifor a week. y Productio

er that indicatirely on dued in percent3). Total wemultiplying

which indicasum of ratiogram (kg)

number whe eggs produgrams per eusing SPSS ly randomiicates), if rences then range test.

NS

ption Rationof ducks tall treatme

egal nths) nit). f 20 are

ight. and 04). ran,

hells with

are daily water

eks. rded

the ghed

this tion,

eks) ions ons) ates

ucks tage

eight the

ates ions ) of

hich uced egg. 16,

ized the it is

ns trial ents

rantheweThiratigraThifeeg/hwegraChratiquaronof suf

Fi EffDayThepro Thpro64.becspeBesamnumproprotreaproconalthdiffGivgooqua

nging from 6e amount ofek was 965is means thion amouams/head/dais figure is

ed consumhead/day. Theks of age,

ams (Hardjoitosan whicion is thouality of ratinmental inflprotein and

fficient for l

igure 1. Diagr

fect of Treaay Productioe average

oduction) fohis figure oduction of 63% (Seti

cause of theecies used inside geneti

mount and mber of egoduction poduced peatment witovided a betnsumption hough statifferences wiving of 2.5%od influencality of feed

6.759-7.222f feed cons.6 to 1,031.hat the exp

unt from ay. much lowmption whe local duc

in one weeosworo, 200ch acts as a ught to conion nutritioluences, so d energy avlife and prod

ram of Tegal D

atment of Eon)

of egg por 7 weeks bis slightly Alabio du

ioko, 2001e differencen the researcc factors aquality of ggs producercentage r treatmenh 2.5% chtter yield (59

figure (stically didth the other

% chitosan ice in proted because o

2 g/duck. Ifsumed by d.7 grams (Fiperiment du

137.9 t

wer than Alwhich is cks feed intaek between

01). a feed additntribute to on from ext

the predictvailable in duction of d

Ducks Feed C

Egg Produc

production between 44.

lower thauck, which 1). This e of age andch.

and the ducfeed will

ced. If seenof trial d

nt (Figurehitosan in 9%) and a s

(984.9 g/hd not show r treatmentsis thought tecting the of its charac

f converted,ducks everyigure 1). ucks spendto 147.39

labio ducks215-248

ake over 20n 900-1.100

ive in duckprotect the

treme envi-ted balancethe feed is

duck.

Consumption

ction (Duck

(duck day1 to 59%.

an the eggis 58.92 tois thoughtd the ducks

ck age, theaffect the

n from theduck eggse 2), thethe ration,

small rationhead/week),

significants (P> 0.05). to provide a

nutritionalcteristics as

, y

d 9

s 8 0 0

k e -e s

k

y

g o t s

e e e s e ,

n , t

a l s

110

anti-oxidandietary fibeffect on beneficial that it will

Figure 2

Effect of Weight Total weigproductionmultiplyingweights (Fegg duringrams. Thitreatment Rand R3 = 6Based on eggs in treheavier thR3).The tochitosan) dose chitosenzymes inthe nutrienprotein andegg compo11% proteicontains 17

Effect oThe averag1.93 to 7.411.23, R2 =The lowes(1.93) is achitosan in

5720

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

R0

D

nt, in addiber and pr

microflorain the duckfacilitate th

2. 7 Weeks Te

Treatment

ght of the egn (egg weg the num

Figure 3). Thng 7-weeksis means thR0 = 56.5269.45 gramsthe observaatment R2 w

han other total egg weiis higher, san is able n the duck

nt absorptiod fat; as theosition consin content a7% protein

of Treatmenge of feed 4. (R0 = = 1.93 ± 0.1st average achieved frn the ration

.76 ±0.29

44.1 26.6

0 R1

DUCK DAY P

ition to chebiotic (giva proliferatk gastrointehe digestive

egal Duck Day

on Mean

ggs is represeights) andmber of eghe average s is 2662.hat the wei, R1 = 54.3

s/egg. ation, total with 2.5% ctreatments ight of 3597presumablyto activate

k gastrointeon is better, egg primarsisted of theand 0% fat, and 35%.

nt on Feed conversion

3.06 ± 1.916, and R3

of the ferom treatm

n). These re

±6

59 ± 8.5

R2

PRODUCTION

hitosan roleves a position whichestinal tract

system.

y Production

of Eggs To

senting the d obtained ggs with total weigh46 to 359ght of the 34, R2 = 73

weight of chitosan sho(R0, R1

7.7 (R2 = 2.y because d the digesstinal tract; especially ry material Te albumin wwhile the y

Conversionn was betw8, R1 = 7.= 1.02 ± 2.3ed convers

ment R2 (2.esults indica

52

46.9 ± 16

R3

N (%)

e as itive h is t, so

Total

egg by

egg ht of 97.7 egg

3.42

the ows and .5% this

stive ; so the

The with yolk

n ween

4 ± 31). sion .5% ated

thawit(frodie

Thicon5.0theIndnampelsupducIn t2.5theof theto e CO Theproconprogracontrea

6

at the treatmth a reducedom 3.06 to et (R0 = rati

Figure 3.T

Figure 4

is result isnversion for0 (Ketaren, 2e poor feeddonesia is amely genetillet, and npplied whichcks. this study i

5% chitosane nutrient ratgerms or ot

e health of defficiently u

ONCLUSIO

e 2.5% chitovide betternsumption oduction 59ams or 73nversion ofatments (R0

ment R2 hasd ration feed1.93) compon without

Total Egg We

4.Tegal Ducks

s more effr the Indon2007). It is

d conversioallegedly cac quality, thnutritional h does not m

t is predicte, it is able totions from ether environduck is welutilize the ra

ONS

tosan in ther productio984.9 gra

9%, egg to.42 grams

f 1.93), whe0, R1 and R

s the highesd conversiopared with chitosan).

eight of Tegal

s Feed Conver

fficient thannesian duck further exp

on in layingaused by thhe number ovalue of

match the n

ed that, wito protect thextreme connmental infll maintaineation.

e ration (R2on performams/week, otal weight per egg, en compare

R3).

t efficiencyn by 6.93%the control

Duck

rsion

n the feedks is 3.2 toplained thatg ducks inree factors,of scatteredthe ration

needs of the

th a dose ofhe quality ofntaminationfluences, soed and able

2) is able tomance (feed

duck dayof 3597.7and feed

ed to other

y %

l

d o t n ,

d n e

f f n o e

o d y 7 d r

REFERENCES Winarno F.G., S. Koswara, 2002. Telur: Komposisi,

Penanganan dan Pengolahannya. M-Brio Press. Bogor, p.6.

Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (NRP), 1994. National Academy Press. Washington DC, p.42.

Manin F., 2003. Efektivitas Kultur Bacillus sp dan Sacharomyces cerevisiae sebagai Sumber Probiotik dan Implikasinyaterhadap Produktivitas Ternak Itik Lokal Kerinci. Disertasi. Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, p.70.

Steel R.G.D., Torrie J.H., 1991. Prinsip dan Prosedur Statistika. Suatu Pendekatan Biometrik. Alih Bahasa Bambang Sumantri. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia, p. 168-205.

Setioko R., 2001. Keragaan Produksi Telur Pada Sentra Pengembangan Agribisnis Komoditas Unggulan (SPAKU) Itik Alabio Di Kabupaten Hulu Sungai Utara, Kalimantan Selatan. Prosiding Pengembangan

Agribisnis Unggas Air Sebagai Peluang Usaha Baru. Kerjasama Fakultas Peternakan IPB, Balai Penelitian Ternak Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Peternakan, dan Yayasan Kehati. Ciawi Bogor. Indonesia, p.139 – 145.

Hardjosworo P.S., A. Setioko, P.P. Ketaren, L.H. Prasetyo, A.P. Sinurat and Rukmiasih, 2001. Perkembangan Teknologi Peternakan Unggas Air di Indonesia. Prosiding Pengembangan Agribisnis Unggas Air sebagai Peluang Usaha Baru. Kerjasama Fakultas Peternakan IPB, Balai Penelitian Ternak, Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Peternakan, dan Yayasan Kehati. Ciawi, Bogor, p.22-41.

Ngo D.H., Kim S.K., 2014. Antioxidant Effects of Chitin, Chitosan, and Their Derivatives. Advance in Food and Nutrition Research. Vol. 73: 15-31.

Ketaren P.P., 2007. Peran Itik Sebagai Penghasil Telur dan Daging Nasional. Wartazoa. Vol. 17 (3), 117 – 127.

111

anti-oxidandietary fibeffect on beneficial that it will

Figure 2

Effect of Weight Total weigproductionmultiplyingweights (Fegg duringrams. Thitreatment Rand R3 = 6Based on eggs in treheavier thR3).The tochitosan) dose chitosenzymes inthe nutrienprotein andegg compo11% proteicontains 17

Effect oThe averag1.93 to 7.411.23, R2 =The lowes(1.93) is achitosan in

5720

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

R0

D

nt, in addiber and pr

microflorain the duckfacilitate th

2. 7 Weeks Te

Treatment

ght of the egn (egg weg the num

Figure 3). Thng 7-weeksis means thR0 = 56.5269.45 gramsthe observaatment R2 w

han other total egg weiis higher, san is able n the duck

nt absorptiod fat; as theosition consin content a7% protein

of Treatmenge of feed 4. (R0 = = 1.93 ± 0.1st average achieved frn the ration

.76 ±0.29

44.1 26.6

0 R1

DUCK DAY P

ition to chebiotic (giva proliferatk gastrointehe digestive

egal Duck Day

on Mean

ggs is represeights) andmber of eghe average s is 2662.hat the wei, R1 = 54.3

s/egg. ation, total with 2.5% ctreatments ight of 3597presumablyto activate

k gastrointeon is better, egg primarsisted of theand 0% fat, and 35%.

nt on Feed conversion

3.06 ± 1.916, and R3

of the ferom treatm

n). These re

±6

59 ± 8.5

R2

PRODUCTION

hitosan roleves a position whichestinal tract

system.

y Production

of Eggs To

senting the d obtained ggs with total weigh46 to 359ght of the 34, R2 = 73

weight of chitosan sho(R0, R1

7.7 (R2 = 2.y because d the digesstinal tract; especially ry material Te albumin wwhile the y

Conversionn was betw8, R1 = 7.= 1.02 ± 2.3ed convers

ment R2 (2.esults indica

52

46.9 ± 16

R3

N (%)

e as itive h is t, so

Total

egg by

egg ht of 97.7 egg

3.42

the ows and .5% this

stive ; so the

The with yolk

n ween

4 ± 31). sion .5% ated

thawit(frodie

Thicon5.0theIndnampelsupducIn t2.5theof theto e CO Theproconprogracontrea

6

at the treatmth a reducedom 3.06 to et (R0 = rati

Figure 3.T

Figure 4

is result isnversion for0 (Ketaren, 2e poor feeddonesia is amely genetillet, and npplied whichcks. this study i

5% chitosane nutrient ratgerms or ot

e health of defficiently u

ONCLUSIO

e 2.5% chitovide betternsumption oduction 59ams or 73nversion ofatments (R0

ment R2 hasd ration feed1.93) compon without

Total Egg We

4.Tegal Ducks

s more effr the Indon2007). It is

d conversioallegedly cac quality, thnutritional h does not m

t is predicte, it is able totions from ether environduck is welutilize the ra

ONS

tosan in ther productio984.9 gra

9%, egg to.42 grams

f 1.93), whe0, R1 and R

s the highesd conversiopared with chitosan).

eight of Tegal

s Feed Conver

fficient thannesian duck further exp

on in layingaused by thhe number ovalue of

match the n

ed that, wito protect thextreme connmental infll maintaineation.

e ration (R2on performams/week, otal weight per egg, en compare

R3).

t efficiencyn by 6.93%the control

Duck

rsion

n the feedks is 3.2 toplained thatg ducks inree factors,of scatteredthe ration

needs of the

th a dose ofhe quality ofntaminationfluences, soed and able

2) is able tomance (feed

duck dayof 3597.7and feed

ed to other

y %

l

d o t n ,

d n e

f f n o e

o d y 7 d r

REFERENCES Winarno F.G., S. Koswara, 2002. Telur: Komposisi,

Penanganan dan Pengolahannya. M-Brio Press. Bogor, p.6.

Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (NRP), 1994. National Academy Press. Washington DC, p.42.

Manin F., 2003. Efektivitas Kultur Bacillus sp dan Sacharomyces cerevisiae sebagai Sumber Probiotik dan Implikasinyaterhadap Produktivitas Ternak Itik Lokal Kerinci. Disertasi. Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, p.70.

Steel R.G.D., Torrie J.H., 1991. Prinsip dan Prosedur Statistika. Suatu Pendekatan Biometrik. Alih Bahasa Bambang Sumantri. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia, p. 168-205.

Setioko R., 2001. Keragaan Produksi Telur Pada Sentra Pengembangan Agribisnis Komoditas Unggulan (SPAKU) Itik Alabio Di Kabupaten Hulu Sungai Utara, Kalimantan Selatan. Prosiding Pengembangan

Agribisnis Unggas Air Sebagai Peluang Usaha Baru. Kerjasama Fakultas Peternakan IPB, Balai Penelitian Ternak Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Peternakan, dan Yayasan Kehati. Ciawi Bogor. Indonesia, p.139 – 145.

Hardjosworo P.S., A. Setioko, P.P. Ketaren, L.H. Prasetyo, A.P. Sinurat and Rukmiasih, 2001. Perkembangan Teknologi Peternakan Unggas Air di Indonesia. Prosiding Pengembangan Agribisnis Unggas Air sebagai Peluang Usaha Baru. Kerjasama Fakultas Peternakan IPB, Balai Penelitian Ternak, Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Peternakan, dan Yayasan Kehati. Ciawi, Bogor, p.22-41.

Ngo D.H., Kim S.K., 2014. Antioxidant Effects of Chitin, Chitosan, and Their Derivatives. Advance in Food and Nutrition Research. Vol. 73: 15-31.

Ketaren P.P., 2007. Peran Itik Sebagai Penghasil Telur dan Daging Nasional. Wartazoa. Vol. 17 (3), 117 – 127.