4.7 Article

A biotechnological process for treatment and recycling poultry wastes manure as a feed ingredient

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 301-309

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00040-X

关键词

wastes; poultry manure; fermentation; recycling; animal feed; laying hen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poultry wastes manure was diluted by adding the same amount of water 50-50 (w/v). They were then mixed with 10% molasses. The mixture was inoculated with a starter culture of Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidolactici, and incubated at 30 degreesC for 10 days. Changes in nutritional quality and biochemical properties (pH, total nitrogen, total volatile nitrogen, non protein nitrogen, carbohydrates and ash) were determined for the raw and the transformed product. In parallel, microbiological analyses, including standard plate count, enterobacteria and enterococci, were performed. Results indicated that the product obtained from the wastes fermentation showed low counts of enterobacteria. and enterococci. Chemical determinations showed a net decrease of the pH to around 4.0 and the growth curve of the lactic acid bacteria showed the success of the acidification process. The total nitrogen was conserved in the product and the total volatile nitrogen was totally eliminated. The product was used for substituting some protein sources in a conventional formula used in laying feeding of three lots. Two formulae containing, respectively, 20% and 40% of the product were compared to the control (0%). The food consumption and laying performances were monitored for 30 days. The nutritional test indicated that the incorporation of the poultry manure silage at a rate of up to 40% gave laying performances similar to those obtained with the conventional formula. These results show that it is possible to transform poultry manure by controlled fermentation and that the product has an added value as a feed ingredient. (C) 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据