4.4 Article

Nutritional Value of Rice Bran Fermented by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Humic Substances and Its Utilization as a Feed Ingredient for Broiler Chickens

Journal

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 231-238

Publisher

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN ASSOC ANIMAL PRODUCTION SOC
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.14.0039

Keywords

Broiler Chickens; Crude Fiber; Fermentation; Performance; Rice Bran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An experiment was conducted to increase the quality of rice bran by fermentation using Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and humic substances and its utilization as a feed ingredient for broiler chickens. The experiment was carried out in two steps. First, the fermentation process was done using a completely randomized design in factorial with 16 treatments: i) Dosage of B.amyloliquefaciens (2.10(8) cfu/g), 10 and 20 g/kg; ii) Graded levels of humic substances, 0, 100, 200, and 400 ppm; iii) Length of fermentation, three and five days. The results showed that the fermentation significantly (p<0.05) reduced crude fiber content. The recommended conditions for fermentation of rice bran: 20 g/kg dosage of inoculums B. amyloliquefaciens, 100 ppm level of humic substances and three days fermentation period. The second step was a feeding trial to evaluate the fermented rice bran (FRB) as a feed ingredient for broiler chickens. Three hundred and seventy-five one-day-old broiler chicks were randomly assigned into five treatment diets. Arrangement of the diets as follows: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% level of FRB and the diets formulation based on equal amounts of energy and protein. The results showed that 15% inclusion of FRB in the diet provided the best bodyweight gain and feed conversion ratio (FCR) values. In conclusion, the nutrient content of rice bran improved after fermentation and the utilization of FRB as a feed ingredient for broiler chickens could be included up to 15% of the broiler diet.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available