Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

  • 제32권3호
  • /
  • Pages.395-404
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1011-2367(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1976-5517(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Method development to reduce the fiber content of wheat bran and rice bran through anaerobic fermentation with rumen liquor for use in poultry feed

  • 투고 : 2018.06.11
  • 심사 : 2018.09.10
  • 발행 : 2019.03.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: Wheat bran (WB) and rice bran (RB) are the agricultural by-products used as poultry feed in many developing countries. However, their use for poultry feed is limited due to high fiber and the presence of anti-nutritional substances (e.g. ${\beta}-glucans$). The objective of this study was to develop a method to improve the quality of those brans by reducing the fiber content. Methods: A two-step fermentation method was developed where the second fermentation of first fermented dry bran was carried out. Fermentation was performed at a controlled environment for 3 h and 6 h (n = 6). The composition of brans, buffer solution and rumen liquor was maintained in a ratio of 1:2:3, respectively. Brans were analyzed for dry matter, crude fiber (CF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) content. Celluloses and hemicelluloses were calculated from the difference of ADF-ADL and NDF-ADF, respectively. Samples were compared by two-factor analysis of variance followed by Tukey's multiple comparison tests (p<0.05). Results: CF %, ADF % and cellulose tended to decrease and NDF % and hemicellulose content was reduced significantly (p<0.05). After the 1st fermentation step, NDF decreased $10.7%{\pm}0.55%$ after 3 h vs $17.0%{\pm}0.78%$ after 6 h in case of WB. Whereas, these values were $2.3%{\pm}0.30%$ (3 h) and $7.5%{\pm}0.69%$ (6 h) in case of RB. However, after the 2nd fermentation step, the decrease in the NDF content amounted to $9.1%{\pm}0.72%$ (3 h), $17.4%{\pm}1.13%$ (6 h) and $9.3%{\pm}0.46%$ (3 h), $10.0%{\pm}0.68%$ (6 h) in WB and RB, respectively. Cellulose and hemicellulose content was reduced up to $15.6%{\pm}0.85%$ (WB), $15.8%{\pm}2.20%$ (RB) and $36.6%{\pm}2.42%$ (WB), $15.9%{\pm}3.53%$ (RB), respectively after 2nd fermentation of 6 h. Conclusion: Two-step fermentation process improved the quality of the brans for their use in poultry feed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Sell-Kubiak E, Wimmers K, Reyer H, Szwaczkowski T. Genetic aspects of feed efficiency and reduction of environmental footprint in broilers: a review. J Appl Genet 2017;58:487-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13353-017-0392-7
  2. Mottet A, Tempio G. Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. World's Poult Sci J 2017;73:245-56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917000071
  3. Ravindran V. Poultry development review: Poultry feed availability and nutrition in developing countries. Rome, Italy; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013.
  4. Supriyati T, Haryati T, Susanti, Susana IWR. Nutritional value of rice bran fermented by Bacillua amyloliquefaciens and humic substances and its utilization as a feed ingredient for broiler chicken. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:231-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0039
  5. Kras RV, Kessler AM, Ribeiro AML, et al. Effect of dietary fiber and genetic strain on the performance and energy balance of broiler chickens. Braz J Poult Sci 2013;15:15-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2013000100003
  6. Satinder K, Savita S, Nagi HPS. Functional properties and anti-nutritional factors in cereal bran. Asian J Food Agro-Ind 2011;4:122-31.
  7. Tahir MI, Khalique A, Pasha TN, Bhatti JA. Comparative evaluation of maize bran, wheat bran and rice bran on milk production of Holstein Friesian cattle. Int J Agric Biol 2002;4:559-60.
  8. Hasselman K, Aman P. The effect of ${\beta}$-glucanase on the utilization of starch and nitrogen by broiler chicks fed on barley of low- or high viscosity. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1986;15:83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(86)90015-5
  9. Munir K, Maqsood S. A review on role of exogenous enzyme supplementation in poultry production. Emir J Food Agric 2013;25:66-80. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v25i1.9138
  10. Ravindran V. Feed enzymes: The science, practice, and metabolic realities. J Appl Poult Res 2013;22:628-36. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00739
  11. Wang Y, McAllister TA. Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion-a review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002;15:1659-76. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1659
  12. Adeyemi OA, Familade FO. Replacement of maize by rumen filtrate fermented corn-cob in layer diets. Bioresour Technol 2003;90:221-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00108-1
  13. Dijkstra J, Tamminga S. Simulation of the effects of diet on the contribution of rumen protozoa to degradation of fiber in the rumen. Br J Nutr 1995;74:617-34. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19950166
  14. McDougall EI. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem J 1948;43:99-109. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0430099
  15. Shen J, Liu Z, Yu Z, Zhu W. Monensin and Nisin affect rumen fermentation and microbiota differently in vitro. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01111
  16. Sechler SR, Mullenix MK, Holland CM, Muntifering RB. Fiber digestion kinetics and protein degradability characteristics of stockpiled Tifton 85 bermudagrass. J Anim Sci 2017;95:3922-31. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2017.1600
  17. Weiss CP, Gentry WW, Cole NA, McCollum III FT, Jennings JS. Effects of feeding condensed distiller's solubles and crude glycerin alone or in combination on finishing beef cattle performance, carcass characteristics, and in vitro fermentation. J Anim Sci 2017;95:922-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2016.0941
  18. DePeters EJ, George LW. Collection of rumen fluid [Internet]. Progressive Dairyman: US; c2015 [cited 2015 Jan 21]. Available from:https://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/herd-health/collection-of-rumen-fluid
  19. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  20. Naumann C, Bassler R. The chemical analysis of feed stuff. In: Method Book, Volume III, 3rd VDLUFA Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany, 1997.
  21. Lopez D, Vazquez AJF, Lopez VN, et al. In vitro gas production of foliage from three browse tree species treated with different dose levels of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2016;100:920-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12467
  22. Duarte AC, Durmic Z, Vercoe PE, Chaves AV. Dose-response effects of dietary pequi oil on fermentation characteristics and microbial population using a rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Anaerobe 2017;48:59-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2017.06.013
  23. Duarte AC, Holman DB, Alexander TW, et al. The type of forage substrate preparation included as substrate in a RUSITEC system affects the ruminal microbiota and fermentation characteristics. Front Microbiol 2017;8:704. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00704
  24. Santra A, Chaturvedi OH, Tripathi MK, Kumar R, Karim SA. Effect of dietary sodium bicarbonate supplementation on fermentation characteristics and ciliate protozoal population in rumen of lambs. Small Rumin Res 2003;47:203-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00241-9
  25. Grant RJ, Weidner SJ. Digestion kinetics of fiber: influence of in vitro buffer pH varied within observed physiological range. J Dairy Sci 1992;75:1060-8. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)77850-3
  26. Mourino F, Akkarawongsa R, Weimer PJ. Initial pH as a determinant of cellulose digestion rate by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:848-59. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74543-2
  27. Dijkstra J, Ellis JL, Kebreab E, et al. Ruminal pH regulation and nutritional consequences of low pH. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012;172:22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.005
  28. Aschenbach J, Penner GB, Stumpff F, Gabel G. Ruminant nutrition symposum: Role of fermentation acid absorption in the regulation of ruminal pH. J Anim Sci 2011;89:1092-107. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3301
  29. Sato S. Pathophysiological evaluation of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) by continuous ruminal pH monitoring. Anim Sci J 2016;87:168-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12415
  30. Chibisa GE, Beauchemin KA, Penner GB. Relative contribution of ruminal buffering systems to pH regulation in feedlot cattle fed either low or high-forage diets. Animal 2016;10:1164-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115002888
  31. Cruywagen CW, Taylor S, Beya MM, Calitz T. The effect of buffering dairy cow diets with limestone, calcareous marine algae, or sodium bicarbonate on ruminal pH profiles, production responses, and rumen fermentation. J Dairy Sci 2015;98:5506-5514. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8875
  32. Wizna, Abbas H, Rizal Y, et al. Improving the Quality of Sago pith and rumen content mixture as poultry feed through fermentation by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Pak J Nutr 2008;7:249-54. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2008.249.254
  33. Jazi V, Boldaji F, Dastar B, Hashemi SR, Ashayerizadeh A. Effects of fermented cottonseed meal on the growth performance, gastrointestinal microflora population and small intestinal morphology in broiler chickens. J Br Poult Sci 2017;58:402-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1315051
  34. Aanuoluwapo AA, Gbenga EO. Growth performance, haematology and meat quality of broiler chickens fed rumen liquorfermented wheat bran-based diets. Jordan J Agric Sci 2014;10:725-36.
  35. Liu Q, Wang C, Li HQ, et al. Effects of dietary protein levels and rumen-protected pantothenate on ruminal fermentation, microbial enzyme activity and bacteria population in Blonde d'Aquitaine $\times$ Simmental beef steers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2017;232:31-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.07.014
  36. Reis WLS, Detmann E, Batista ED, et al. Effects of ruminal and post-ruminal protein supplementation in cattle fed tropical forages on insoluble fiber degradation, activity of fibrolytic enzymes, and the ruminal microbial community profile. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016;218:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.001
  37. Da Silva LD, Pereira OG, Silva TCD, Valadares FSC, Ribeiro KG. Effects of silage crop and dietary crude protein levels on digestibility ruminal fermentation, nitrogen use efficiency, and performance of finishing beef cattle. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016;220:22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.008
  38. Ouellet DR, Chiquette J. Effect of dietary metabolizable protein level and live yeasts on ruminal fermentation and nitrogen utilization in lactating dairy cows on a high red clover silage diet. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016;220:73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.006
  39. Pantoja J, Firkins JL, Eastridge ML, Hull BL. Effects of fat saturation and source of fiber on site of nutrient digestion and milk production by lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:2341-56. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77177-0
  40. Oldick BS, Firkins JL. Effects of degree of fat saturation on fiber digestion and microbial protein synthesis when diets are fed twelve times daily. J Anim Sci 2000;78: 2412-20. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.7892412x
  41. Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd. ed. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press; 1994. 476 p.

피인용 문헌

  1. Effect of feeding fermented (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) de-oiled rice bran in broiler growth and bone mineralization vol.20, pp.7, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2021.05.006