4.8 Article

Lactic acid fermentation of food waste for swine feed

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 97, Issue 15, Pages 1858-1864

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.08.020

Keywords

food waste; lactic acid bacteria; fermentation; pig; feed

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was conducted to determine the effects of lactic acid bacteria (LAB, Lactobacillus salivarius) inoculation on the microbial, physical and chemical properties of food waste mixture (FWM) stored at ambient temperature (25 degrees C) for 10 and 30 days. A complete pig diet including restaurant food waste, bakery by-product, barley and wheat bran, and broiler poultry litter was amended with LAB at the levels of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5% and 1.0% and fermented anaerobically. These treatments were compared with intact FWM before storage and non-anaerobically stored FWM. Non-anaerobic storage of FWM showed microbial putrefaction with the loss (P < 0.05) of water and water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) and increases (P < 0.005) in protein and fiber. Anaerobic fermentation of FWM with or without LAB seemed effective in both 10-and 30-day-storage. The addition of LAB inoculants to FWM showed a linear trend (P < 0.05) toward an increase in the number of total and lactic acid bacteria and toward the nutritional improvement with WSC increased and fiber decreased. Long-term (30 days) storage resulted in consistent reduction (P < 0.05) in numbers of total and lactic acid bacteria and pH and showed little change in chemical components, compared with short-term (10 days) storage. On the basis of these results, LAB inoculation improved fermentative characteristics of FWM. Among anaerobic treatments, further WSC increase and NDF reduction did not occur (P > 0.05) when LAB-added levels were over 0.2%. Based on these observations the optimum level of LAB addition to FWM was 0.2%. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available