Biologically Converted Agricultural Byproducts in Chicken Nutrition: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Peter Tang and Version 1 by Metekia Tamiru Tasew.

 Agricultural and agro-industrial activities generate thousands of tons of byproducts. Converting these agricultural byproducts into valuable entities would be an environmentally friendly, sustainable, and viable part of byproduct management. Upon recycling to make new products, the process contributes to socio-economic value and maintaining environmental health and paves the way for realizing energy security and a circular economy.

  • anti-nutritional factor
  • bioconversion
  • broilers
  • fermented feed
  • laying hens

1. Introduction

To date, world population growth has been a severe challenge for food availability, with a tremendous increment to over 7.91 billion in 2021, and it is projected to increase further by well over 9 billion by 2050 [1]. Poultry production is vital to the food supply of the ever-growing world population, and it is estimated that poultry meat and eggs account for about a third of the animal protein consumed worldwide [2]. According to F.A.O. data, the poultry sector contributed 40.6 percent (337.3 million tons) of meat availability in 2020. The global egg yield increased from 1.528 billion in 2018 to 1.577 billion in 2019 [3].
The Food and Agriculture Organization (F.A.O.) estimated the global production of agricultural byproducts in 2019 at about 5.2 billion tons [4]. The amounts of agricultural byproducts produced vary by region and country, with developing countries producing the majority of byproducts due to their reliance on traditional farming methods and limited access to modern technologies for product management. Agricultural byproducts can pose both an environmental hazard and a valuable resource for manufacturing valuable products. As a result, there is growing interest in developing sustainable and efficient methods of managing and utilizing agricultural byproducts [4]. A sustainable method of managing agricultural byproducts is to process them for animal feed production [5].
Converting agricultural byproducts into utilizable ingredients in the chicken diet would be a noble, economical, and viable option for byproduct management. Bioconversion fermentation contributes to nutrient recycling, ultimately realizing energy security and a circular economy [6]. However, the utilization of agricultural byproducts is restricted due to legal prohibitions, anti-nutritional factors (A.N.F.s), high fiber, and low protein content that would affect nutrient availability and digestibility. However, it is reported that the fermentation process that involves lignin-degrading and proteolytic enzymes from fungi and bacteria can significantly improve agricultural residues’ digestibility and palatability [7].
Bioconversion can improve the nutritional quality of feedstuffs by reducing dietary fiber and anti-nutritional factors and enhancing lipids and protein levels. Moreover, it improves amino acid composition, protein digestibility, vitamin availability, calcium, and organic matter digestibility [8[8][9],9], ultimately boosting the diet’s palatability [10]. It has been reported that bacterial fermentation results in the production of a considerable amount of lactic acids, which would retard harmful bacterial multiplication in the gut, minimize nutrient and dry matter (D.M.) loss during storage, and boost the palatability of the diet to the animal [11,12][11][12].

2. Volume of Biomass of Agricultural Byproducts

Agricultural and agro-industrial activities result in the production of large quantities of byproducts. These byproducts amount to approximately 998 million tons yearly [18][13]. They have different types and can be categorized based on their source and composition. One type of agricultural byproduct is field residue, composed of plant parts such as leaves, stalks, seed pods, and culms [19,20,21][14][15][16]. Agricultural byproducts are materials generated in large quantities during the processing of primary agricultural products. These byproducts can include materials from various industries, such as milling, oil, sugar, starch, fruit and vegetable, and fermentation industries. Byproducts from the milling industry, for example, can include bran, byproduct flour, residues from grain cleaning processes, wheat, corn, and rye germ. In addition, husks from certain seeds, such as pea, barley, and buckwheat, can be considered byproducts of the milling industry. These are examples of various byproducts from different industries that can be used in animal feed production. For instance, the residual materials of the oil industry, like cakes obtained from soybean and oil-producing rapeseed, sunflower, and flax products, along with lecithin and fatty acids resulting from the refining of vegetable oils, can be used in the production of animal feed. Similarly, residual materials from the sugar industries and starch industries, including beet pulp, molasses, potato pulp, potato cell juice, and other seed residues after starch extraction, as well as byproducts from the fruit and vegetable industry, such as products that result from the peeling of vegetables, apples, avocados, grapes, pomace, and fruit stones, can also be used in animal feed production. Additionally, byproducts of the fermentation industry, including grain, molasses, soluble potato distillery, brewer’s and wine’s yeast, bacterial and fungal biomass, spent grains, and malt germ in breweries, can be used in animal feed production [19][14].

3. Nutritional Composition of Agricultural Byproduct

Commonly found anti-nutritional factors are presented in Table 1. Anti-nutritional factors (A.N.F.s) are chemical substances in some feed ingredients that can negatively affect animal health, feed conversion, and production. A.N.F.s can impair the uptake, availability, or metabolism of nutrients in an animal and affect feed palatability, voluntary feed intake, and physiological control processes [22,23][17][18]. A.N.F.s are classified into two main categories: those impairing protein digestion and utilization (such as tannins, protease inhibitors, and lectins) and those that interfere with the utilization of minerals (such as gossypol, phytates, and glucosinolates). Other A.N.F.s include antivitamins and substances such as alkaloids, cyanogens, mycotoxins, mimosine, saponins, and phytoestrogens [24,25][19][20]. Gossypol is a toxic compound found in the cotton plant, with the highest concentration being in the cotton seeds. While cottonseed meals can be used as components of poultry diets, their use is often restricted due to gossypol and their low lysine content [26][21]. Free gossypol can bind to lysine and reduce its availability, harming growth performance and increasing broilers’ mortality. Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider the use of cottonseed meals in poultry diets and take measures to mitigate the potential adverse effects of gossypol [27,28][22][23]. Chitin is a complex carbohydrate that the digestive enzymes of poultry cannot break down. Nutrients in feed ingredients containing chitin can be limited in some products, such as shrimp byproducts, for poultry [29,30,31][24][25][26]. Shrimp byproducts are rich in nutrients, particularly protein, comparable to quality fishmeal, and relatively inexpensive. However, the presence of chitin in shrimp byproducts can be problematic as it binds to proteins and minerals in a way that limits availability [30,32][25][27]. Glucosinolates are a group of sulfur-containing phytochemicals commonly found in cruciferous vegetables and vegetables. In R.S.M. (rapeseed meal), the main glucosinolates are glucosamine, glucobrassicin, progoitrin, gluconapoleiferin, and glucobrassicin. These compounds can have positive and negative effects on animal health, depending on their level and the animal species being fed [33,34][28][29]. Phytic acid, or myoinositol hexaphosphoric acid, is a compound found in grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds [35][30]. It is the stored form of phosphorus in these foods. However, phytic acid is considered an anti-nutritional factor since it can form insoluble complexes by binding with proteins and minerals. This interaction can lead to alterations in protein solubility and structure, making them less available for absorption in the gut in both humans and animals [36][31]. Tannins are polyphenolic compounds with high molecular weights that can be grouped into condensed or hydrolyzable tannins. The majority of tannins in canola are condensed tannins [37][32]. Tannins can decrease nutrient bioavailability by forming indigestible and bitter-tasting complexes with proteins [38][33]. Rapeseed meal (R.S.M.) contains anti-nutritional components such as glucosinolates, phytic acid, and fiber, which can limit its nutritional value and palatability. As a result, R.S.M. is used in limited amounts in animal feed [39][34]. Similarly, rapeseed meal contains nutritionally inhibiting factors, including phytates, glucosinolates, tannins, and crude fibers, which can affect a broiler’s feed utilization [40][35]. Cyanogenic glycosides (C.G.s) comprise a type of organic compound, containing cyanide, commonly found in various plants such as almonds, wheat, barley, sorghum, cassava, apples, and flaxseed [41][36]. Linseed meal (F.S.M.) is a novel protein source in animal farming that contains several beneficial nutrients. However, it also contains nutritional inhibitors, such as cyanogenic glycosides, phytic acid (P.A.), and antivitamin B6 (VB6), that can adversely affect animal health and limit the use of F.S.M. in animal nutrition. The antivitamin B6 in F.S.M. is a dipeptide composed of glutamine and proline with a concentration of approximately 177,437 g/g. This antivitamin B6 factor can bind to the enzyme formed after VB6 phosphorylation, which causes the enzyme to lose its physiological role and impairs the utilization and absorption of vitamins by animals, leading to Vitamin B6 insufficiency [42][37]. Non-starch polysaccharides (N.S.P.s) such as mannan, xylan, and cellulose in poultry feed limit the digestibility of the basal diet. Palm kernel cake (PKC) use in monogastric animal feeds has been limited due to high N.S.P. concentrations and high content of coarse texture, crude fiber, and sandy appearance. It is also stated that PKC comprises 35.2% mannan [43,44][38][39]. The indigestible portions comprise N.S.P.s, consisting of mannan (78%), cellulose (12%), arabinoxylans (3%), and water-insoluble glucoxylans (3%) [45][40]. Because of the adverse effects observed in poultry, palm-kernel-cake dietary intake should not exceed 40% [45,46][40][41]. Feedstuffs such as soybeans, wheat, barley, and rapeseed meal contain vast amounts of N.S.P.s, but poultry lacks endogenous N.S.P. hydrolase. The soluble N.S.P. in the feed increases the digestive viscosity of the small intestine broiler and decreases the digestibility of nutrients [47][42]. Phytate is a compound that serves as the primary storage form of phosphorus in many plants, particularly in bran and seeds. However, phytate can also hinder the absorption of other minerals in addition to phosphorus. Soy meal, a byproduct of soybean oil extraction, is a commonly used animal feed, particularly for poultry. This meal contains a variety of anti-nutritional factors, including protease inhibitors, phytic acid, lectins, saponins, phytoestrogens, and antivitamins [25][20].
Table 1.
Anti-nutritional compounds found in agricultural byproducts.

Feedstuffs

Ant Nutritional Factors

Reference

Soybean meal

Trypsin inhibitors, Lectins, Phytic Acid, Protease inhibitors, Saponins, Antivitamin

[25][20]

Rapeseed meal

Glucosinolates, tannins, phenolic acids, phytic acid, and fiber

[33,34,39][28][29][34]

Canola meal

Glucosinolates, tannins, crude fiber, and phytate

[40][35]

Cassava peels

Cyanide and phytate

[48][43]

Cotton seed meal

Gossypol

[26,27][21][22]

Shrimp by product

Chitin

[30,[2531]][26]

Flaxseed Meal

Cyanogenic glycosides, phytic acid, and antivitamin B6

[41,42][36][37]

Mulberry leaf

Protease inhibitors, tannin tannic acid

[49,50][44][45]

Groundnut shells, pigeon pea husk

Phytate and tannin

[7]

Wheat straw and bran

Tannin, phytic acid

[51,52][46][47]

Rice bran

Phytic acid

[53,54][48][49]

4. Methods for Reducing Anti-Nutritional Factors

Table 2 presents the role of biological treatments on reducing antinutritional factors from agricultural byproducts. The nutrient availability and digestibility of feed and agro-industrial byproducts can be impaired by the presence of anti-nutritional factors (A.N.F.s) such as hydrocyanic acid, oxalates, phytates, tannins, polyphenols, and saponins [55][50]. Different methods, such as biological (microbial) processes, have been used to enhance the nutritional quality and decrease the quantities of A.N.F.s. Chemical and mechanical processes are costly and labor-intensive, whereas microbial fermentation is a more affordable and safer alternative for improving the nutrient content of agro-industrial byproducts. The abundance and composition (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) of agro-industrial byproducts make them an attractive option for recycling and fermentation through microbial fermentation as a viable alternative for product management [55][50]. Solid-state fermentation (S.S.F.) is a type of biological fermentation that involves cultivating microorganisms on humid, compact, insoluble biological ingredients. These materials serve as nutrient bases for the microorganisms to grow, and the process occurs in the absence or near-nonexistence of free-flowing water [32,56][27][51]. S.S.F. has been found to reduce A.N.F.s, which are bioactive compounds that affect the bioavailability and bio-digestibility of nutrients in feed, thereby improving the bioavailability and digestibility of nutrients in agro-industrial byproducts [57][52]. Both filamentous fungi such as Trichoderma reesei, Trichoderma viride, Rhizopus oligosporus, Aspergillus niger, Mucor racemosus, Rhizopus arrhizus, Rhizopus oryzae, Mucor rouxii, Penicillium oxalicum, Penicillium viridicatum, and Fusarium oxysporum as well as yeasts such as Saccharomyces boulardii, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida sphaerica, Candida tropicalis, Candida stellate, and Candida are commonly used in S.S.F. Bacteria such as Bacillus mycoides, Bacillus megatherium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus have also been used in S.S.F. [32,56][27][51]. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of S.S.F. in the biological detoxification of and reduction in the quantities of A.N.F.s in agro-industrial byproducts using filamentous fungi, yeast, and bacteria [58][53]. However, it has been reported that fermentation can also increase the levels of A.N.F.s in feedstuff components, such as glucosinolates in rapeseed meal; lectins and trypsin inhibitors in soybean meal; tannins, hemagglutinins, and prosopin in prosopean meal; and phytate in corn [59,60][54][55]. Despite this, some studies have shown that S.S.F. can decrease the levels of A.N.F.s in animal feed. For example, Oboh [48][43] found S.S.F. using a mixed culture of Lactobacillus spp and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, significantly decreased phytate and cyanide levels in fermented cassava peel compared to not-fermented peel, which contained higher concentrations of these A.N.F.s. In another study, Bacillus subtilis, Candida utilis, and Enterococcus faecalis were found to degrade phytic acid, glucosinolate, and tannin in rapeseed meal under S.S.F., resulting in reductions of 20%, 96%, and 36%, respectively [61][56]. Overall, S.S.F. is a practical approach to reducing A.N.F. quantities in animal feed production. It can significantly benefit both the animals and the farmers who rely on them for their livelihoods. Aspergillus niger is known to produce Phytase during fermentation, which releases the protein trapped in rice bran by hydrolyzing the phytic acid and making it easier to digest. Additionally, anti-nutritional factors (A.N.F.s) in animal feed can produce intermediate products that decrease the presence of essential nutrients [62][57]. However, solid-state fermentation (S.S.F.) treatment with microorganisms can reduce the harmful effects of A.N.F.s. For instance, S.S.F. with Lactobacillus fermentum, Enterococcus faecium, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Bacillus subtilis reduced the amount of isothiocyanate in rapeseed meals from 119 to 14 mmol/kg after 30 days [63][58]. Similarly, other studies have documented a reduction in isothiocyanate levels after S.S.F. [64][59]. In one study, glucosinolates, isothiocyanate, phytic acid, and tannins were reduced from 41.91 to 23.86 mol/g, 2.48 to 1.10 mg/g, 2.66% to 0.37%, and 1.32% to 0.84%, respectively [65][60]. The reductions in glucosinolate content may have been due to the utilization of glucose and the sulfur portions of these compounds by microbial enzymes [66,67][61][62]. The reduction in phytic acid can be attributed to microbial enzymes such as Phytase produced during S.S.F. S.S.F. with the bacterial degradation of A.N.F.s in rapeseed flour using the enzyme myrosinase can degrade glucosinolates and release several derivatives [67][62]. Additionally, in some studies, S.S.F. significantly decreased the amount of free gossypol and A.N.F. Tang et al. [68][63] found that free gossypol was reduced from 0.82 to 0.21 g/kg in solid fermented cottonseed meal. Similarly, in another study, free gossypol decreased from 90 to 30 mg/kg [69][64]. The reduction in free gossypol content during S.S.F. may have been due to the binding of free gossypol to proteins or amino acids produced by microorganisms, the degradation of gossypol by microbial enzymes, or both mechanisms. The fermentation process for shrimp byproducts can be carried out using a stepwise fermentation technique with Bacillus licheniformis, Lactobacillus sp., and yeast in the form of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bacillus licheniformis bacteria produce chitinase and protease enzymes with deproteinizing properties that release nitrogen or protein from chitin bonds [30,31][25][26]. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a yeast that produces enzymes such as amylase, lipase, protease, and others that can aid in the digestion process of feed in the digestive organs [70][65]. After deproteinization and demineralization, proteins and minerals bound to chitin can be broken down, allowing a chicken’s digestive system to digest this protein [70,71][65][66]. In a study, the phytate and tannin content of biotransformed peanut shells was also significantly reduced [7]. The decrease in tannin and phytate content in the byproduct material during S.S.F. may have been due to the ability of the test fungi to produce Phytase. Phytase is an enzyme that breaks down phytate, i.e., phosphorus, in many plant-based foods. Conversely, tannins can also be degraded by certain microorganisms or their enzymes during S.S.F.
Table 2.
Effect of biological treatments on reducing anti-nutritional factors from agricultural byproducts.

Types of Agricultural Byproducts

Treatment

Reduced Anti-Nutritional Factors

  

Tannins

Glucosinolates

Phytic Acid

Cyanide

Reference

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Rapeseed meal

SSF by R. oligosporus

N.A.

N.A.

63.4

36.3 (−42.8%)

29.3

16.9 (−42.3%)

N.A.

N.A.

[66][61]

S.S.F. by A. niger

N.A.

N.A.

16.45

9.37 (−43.0%)

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

[65][60]

S.S.F. by A. niger

N.A.

N.A.

23.79

16.51 (−30.6)

    

N.A.

N.A.

[72][67]

Rapeseed Cake

S.S.F. by A. niger

N.A.

N.A.

NA

NA

2.78 (%)

1.54 (−44.60%)

N.A.

N.A.

[73][68]

SSF by L. delbrueckii and B. subtilis

N.A.

N.A.

64.56 μmol/g

3.47 (−94.6%)

    

N.A.

N.A.

[74][69]

Wheat straw

S.S.F. by E. fungi

702 μg/100 g

502 (−28.5%)

N.A.

N.A.

200 μg/100 g

175 (−12.5%)

N.A.

N.A.

[7]

Pigeon pea

S.S.F. by E. fungi

665 μg/100 g

589 (−11.4%)

N.A.

N.A.

611 μg/100 g

298 (−51.2%)

N.A.

N.A.

[7]

Groundnut

SSF by E. fungi

454 μg/100 g

314 (−30.8%)

N.A.

N.A.

465 μg/100 g

303 (−34.3%)

N.A.

N.A.

[7]

Cassava peels

Mixture of Lactobacillus delbruckii and Lactobacillus coryneformis

and Saccharomyces cerevisae

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

1043.6 mg/100 g

789.7 (−24.3%)

44.6 mg/kg

6.2 (−86.1%)

[48][43]

Canola meal

S.S.F. by Aspergillus sojae, Aspergillus ficuum, and their co-cultures

N.A.

N.A.

9.31

6.52 (−30.0%)

    

N.A.

N.A.

[75][70]

Cotton seed meal

S.S.F. by L.A.B.

N.A.

N.A.

77.18 μmol/g

54.05 (−30.0%)

7.71 μmol/g

3.9 (−49.4%)

N.A.

N.A.

[76][71]

Olive cake

S.S.F. by Filamentous fungi

4.78 mg/g

3.23 (−32.4%)

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

[77][72]

Cassava peels

SSF

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

14.7

1.4 (−90.5%)

[78][73]

N.A., not analyzed; L.A.B., Lactic Acid Bacteria.

5. Nutritional Composition of Bioconverted Agricultural Byproducts

Table 3 presents the role of microbial fermentation in improving the chemical composition of agricultural byproducts. Biotransforming microorganisms have been shown to enhance chicken feed’s chemical composition and nutritional value [79][74]. Purwadaria et al. [80][75] also reported that the fermentation of agricultural byproducts improved their nutritional value. Nutrient bioavailability has been improved using solid-state fermentation (S.S.F.) while reducing anti-nutritional agents. For S.S.F. to increase nutrition, several microbes have been used, primarily Lactobacillus, Bacillus, and Aspergillus strains. Aspergillus can produce enzymes such as hemicellulase, pectinase, protease, lipase, amylase, tannase [81,82][76][77], and Phytase [83,84][78][79]. The bacterium Lactobacillus produces Phytase, cellulase, xylanase, and glucanase [85][80]. Bacillus can synthesize cellulase and Phytase [86][81]. In a study utilizing Aspergillus niger to determine the impact of S.S.F. on the nutrient content of rice bran, Hardini [87][82] found that the nutrient composition of fermented rice bran had significantly increased. For determining the nutritional value of fermented feed, it is vital to consider the crude protein content, pH level, and the number of bacteria [88][83]. Lu et al. [89][84] reported that microbial fermentation increased levels of organic acids (citric, succinic, and butyric), amino acids (Ser, Gly, Cys, Leu, Lys, His, and Arg), crude protein, and levels of neutral and acidic Detergent fibers in soybeans and other flour types. The findings demonstrated that fermentation by microorganisms altered the feed’s chemical makeup and boosted certain nutrients. Guo et al. [79][74] showed that microbial fermentation increased the C.P. content of the substrate substantially. This could have been because the relative concentration of other nutrients rises due to the dry matter loss in fermented feed, particularly the loss of carbs. The breakdown of macromolecular proteins, primarily antigenic proteins, may have contributed to the rise in C.P. [90][85]. The microbial fermentation of S.B.M. eliminates A.N.F.s and increases nutritional value [79,91][74][86]. It was noticed that the quantity of glucan, phytic acid, and crude fiber decreased following fermentation with the probiotic agent. This might have been because those antinutrient substances are broken down by similar enzymes, like Phytase and cellulase, that are produced. The crude protein level was doubled in the biotransformed crop residues using endophytic fungi [7]. The rise in crude protein could be attributed to the fungi’s production of mycelial proteins or the fermenting fungus’s growth, breaking down complex polysaccharides into single-cell proteins (S.C.P.) [92][87]. The extracellular enzymes—amylases, cellulases, xylanases, and pectinases—secreted by fungi to use complex polysaccharides may be the reason for the processed material’s higher protein concentration [93,94][88][89]. It was also found that the quantities of total carbohydrates are increased, showing that hexoses are released due to Togninia spp—an example of extracellular protease synthesis [7]. Crude protein in rapeseed meals rose from 37.1% to 58.4% after solid-state fermentation (S.S.F.) with Lactobacillus plantarum and Bacillus subtilis [95][90]. Similarly, Bacillus subtilis, Candida utilis, and Enterococcus faecalis inoculation increased the crude protein level from 42.11% to 44.63% [61][56]. The drop in T.S. content and the extra microbial protein produced during S.S.F. were responsible for the rise in crude protein levels. Likewise, S.S.F. caused a decrease in rapeseed meal’s dry matter content (D.M.) [63][58]. The decrease in the T.S. content could be due to the sugar consumption of the microorganisms. Adding Lactobacillus plantarum and Bacillus subtilis to S.S.F. rapeseed meal improved its crude fat content [95][90]. A similar result was observed by [64][59] when Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus fermentum were tried out. The increase in fat can be partly attributed to the reduction in the quantity of carbohydrates during S.S.F. In contrast to these studies, the authors of [65][60] reported that the S.S.F. of rapeseed meals employing Aspergillus niger resulted in lower crude fat. Overall, variations in the solid fermented rapeseed meal’s crude fat content may occur due to factors like oil processing techniques, feed source, and microorganisms utilized. According to Bidura et al. [53][48], fermentation increased rice bran’s crude protein content and metabolizable energy. Fermented rice bran has a more excellent crude protein content and ether extract due to Phytase and microbial biomass. Hardini [96][91] conducted a study using Aspergillus niger to determine the effect of fermentation in the soil on the nutrient content of rice bran and discovered a considerable enhancement of fermented rice bran’s nutritional profile. The nutritional and energy profile of agricultural wastes is improved by fungal bioconversion. Endophytic fungi can convert the selected residues of agriculture into digestible hexoses, considerably increasing the concentration of protein and nitrogen. The most significant amounts of total carbs, total proteins, and digestible lipids are found in biotransformed peanut shell residue [7]. Shrimp waste products treated by fermentation showed increased quality and palatability in rations [82,97][77][92]. Haddar et al. [83][78] and Saleh et al. [31][26] also reported that the processing of shrimp waste products and olive cake flour using the microorganism Bacillus licheniformis and yeast in the form of Saccharomyces cerevisiae makes protein independent of the limiting factor in the form of chitin, increasing the nutritional value—namely, increasing the protein content in shrimp as a product and improving its palatability.

References

  1. Koul, B.; Yakoob, M.; Shah, M.P. Agricultural Waste Management Strategies for Environmental Sustainability. Environ. Res. 2022, 206, 112285.
  2. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Poultry Sector: Global Overview. 2020. Available online: https://www.fao.org/poultry-production-products/production/en/ (accessed on 11 September 2020).
  3. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Global Poultry Industry and Trends. Feed & Additive Magazine. Magazine (2021). 2021. Available online: https://www.feedandadditive.com (accessed on 7 September 2023).
  4. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention. 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/I2697e/I2697e.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2023).
  5. Mata-Alvarez, J.; Macé, S.; Llabres, P. Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Wastes. An Overview of Research Achievements and Perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 74, 3–16.
  6. Chilakamarry, C.R.; Sakinah, A.M.; Zularisam, A.W.; Sirohi, R.; Khilji, I.A.; Ahmad, N.; Pandey, A. Advances in Solid-State Fermentation for Bioconversion of Agricultural Wastes to Value-Added Products: Opportunities and Challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126065.
  7. Patil, R.H.; Patil, M.P.; Maheshwari, V.L. Microbial Transformation of Crop Residues into a Nutritionally Enriched Substrate and Its Potential Application in Livestock Feed. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1140.
  8. Canibe, N.; Jensen, B.B. Fermented Liquid Feed—Microbial and Nutritional Aspects and Impact on Enteric Diseases in Pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 173, 17–40.
  9. Sugiharto, S.; Ranjitkar, S. Recent Advances in Fermented Feeds towards Improved Broiler Chicken Performance, Gastrointestinal Tract Microecology and Immune Responses: A Review. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 5, 1–10.
  10. Shahowna, E.M.; Mahala, A.G.; Mokhtar, A.M.; Amasaib, E.O.; Attaelmnan, B. Evaluation of Nutritive Value of Sugar Cane Bagasse Fermented with Poultry Litter as Animal Feed. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 4, 106–109.
  11. Ni, Y.J.; Liang, Y.; Tian, D.D. Effects of Fermented Unconventional Protein Feed on Growth Performance and Nutrient Digestibility of Broilers. Cereal Feed. Ind. 2012, 4, 56–59.
  12. Boroojeni, F.G.; Senz, M.; Kozłowski, K.; Boros, D.; Wisniewska, M.; Rose, D.; Männer, K.; Zentek, J. The Effects of Fermentation and Enzymatic Treatment of Pea on Nutrient Digestibility and Growth Performance of Broilers. Animal 2017, 11, 1698–1707.
  13. Agamuthu, P. Challenges and Opportunities in Agro-Waste Management: An Asian Perspective. In Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of First Regional 3R Forum in Asia, Tokyo, Japan, 11–12 November 2009; University of Malasiya: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2009; pp. 11–12.
  14. Ajila, C.M.; Brar, S.K.; Verma, M.; Tyagi, R.D.; Godbout, S.; Valéro, J.R. Bio-Processing of Agro-Byproducts to Animal Feed. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2012, 32, 382–400.
  15. Sadh, P.K.; Duhan, S.; Duhan, J.S. Agro-Industrial Wastes and Their Utilization Using Solid State Fermentation: A Review. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5, 1.
  16. Ravindran, R.; Hassan, S.S.; Williams, G.A.; Jaiswal, A.K. A Review on Bioconversion of Agro-Industrial Wastes to Industrially Important Enzymes. Bioengineering 2018, 5, 93.
  17. Ramteke, R.; Doneria, R.; Gendley, M.K. Antinutritional Factors in Feed and Fodder Used for Livestock and Poultry Feeding. Acta Sci. Nutr. Health 2019, 3, 39–48.
  18. López-Gámez, G.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Elez-Martínez, P. Food Processing Interventions to Improve the Bioaccessibility and Bioavailability of Plant Food Nutrients. In Engineering Plant-Based Food Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 277–298.
  19. Francis, G.; Makkar, H.P.; Becker, K. Antinutritional Factors Present in Plant-Derived Alternate Fish Feed Ingredients and Their Effects in Fish. Aquaculture 2001, 199, 197–227.
  20. Small, B.C. Nutritional Physiology. In Fish Nutrition; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 593–641.
  21. Lordelo, M.M.; Calhoun, M.C.; Dale, N.M.; Dowd, M.K.; Davis, A.J. Relative Toxicity of Gossypol Enantiomers in Laying and Broiler Breeder Hens. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 582–590.
  22. Mahmood, F.; Khan, M.Z.; Khan, A.; Muhammad, G.; Javed, I. Lysine Induced Modulation of Toxico-Pathological Effects of Cottonseed Meal in Broiler Breeder Males. Pak. J. Zool. 2011, 43, 357–365.
  23. Henry, M.H.; Pesti, G.M.; Brown, T.P. Pathology and Histopathology of Gossypol Toxicity in Broiler Chicks. Avian Dis. 2001, 45, 598–604.
  24. Punekar, N.S.; Punekar, N.S. Enzyme Kinetic Data: Collection and Analysis. In ENZYMES: Catalysis, Kinetics and Mechanisms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 193–211.
  25. Lin, H.-T.V.; Huang, M.-Y.; Kao, T.-Y.; Lu, W.-J.; Lin, H.-J.; Pan, C.-L. Production of Lactic Acid from Seaweed Hydrolysates via Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermentation. Fermentation 2020, 6, 37.
  26. Saleh, A.A.; Paray, B.A.; Dawood, M.A. Olive Cake Meal and Bacillus Licheniformis Impacted the Growth Performance, Muscle Fatty Acid Content, and Health Status of Broiler Chickens. Animals 2020, 10, 695.
  27. Pandey, A.; Soccol, C.R.; Mitchell, D. New Developments in Solid State Fermentation: I-Bioprocesses and Products. Process Biochem. 2000, 35, 1153–1169.
  28. Konkol, D.; Szmigiel, I.; Domżał-Kędzia, M.; Kułażyński, M.; Krasowska, A.; Opaliński, S.; Korczyński, M.; Łukaszewicz, M. Biotransformation of Rapeseed Meal Leading to Production of Polymers, Biosurfactants, and Fodder. Bioorganic Chem. 2019, 93, 102865.
  29. Lee, J.W.; Woyengo, T.A. Growth Performance, Organ Weights, and Blood Parameters of Nursery Pigs Fed Diets Containing Increasing Levels of Cold-Pressed Canola Cake. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 4704–4712.
  30. Jacela, J.Y.; DeRouchey, J.M.; Tokach, M.D.; Goodband, R.D.; Nelssen, J.L.; Renter, D.G.; Dritz, S.S. Feed Additives for Swine: Fact Sheets–Flavors and Mold Inhibitors, Mycotoxin Binders, and Antioxidants. J. Swine Health Prod. 2010, 18, 27–32.
  31. Nissar, J.; Ahad, T.; Naik, H.R.; Hussain, S.Z. A Review Phytic Acid: As Antinutrient or Nutraceutical. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2017, 6, 1554–1560.
  32. Hashmi, S.I.; Satwadhar, P.N.; Khotpal, R.R.; Deshpande, H.W.; Syed, K.A.; Vibhute, B.P. Rapeseed Meal Nutraceuticals. J. Oilseed Brassica 2016, 1, 43–54.
  33. Tanwar, B.; Modgil, R.; Goyal, A. Antinutritional Factors and Hypocholesterolemic Effect of Wild Apricot Kernel (Prunus Armeniaca L.) as Affected by Detoxification. Food Funct. 2018, 9, 2121–2135.
  34. Cheng, H.; Liu, X.; Xiao, Q.; Zhang, F.; Liu, N.; Tang, L.; Wang, J.; Ma, X.; Tan, B.; Chen, J. Rapeseed Meal and Its Application in Pig Diet: A Review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 849.
  35. Kocher, A.; Choct, M.; Porter, M.D.; Broz, J. The Effects of Enzyme Addition to Broiler Diets Containing High Concentrations of Canola or Sunflower Meal. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 1767–1774.
  36. Cho, H.-J.; Do, B.-K.; Shim, S.-M.; Kwon, H.; Lee, D.-H.; Nah, A.-H.; Choi, Y.-J.; Lee, S.-Y. Determination of Cyanogenic Compounds in Edible Plants by Ion Chromatography. Toxicol. Res. 2013, 29, 143–147.
  37. Mayengbam, S.S. Characterization, Quantification, and In Vivo Effects of Vitamin B6 Antagonists from Flaxseed on Amino Acid Metabolism in a Rodent Model of Moderate Vitamin B6 Deficiency. 2014. Available online: https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/d9f6cd31-4b9b-4ab3-9874-2e5b5505e6b1 (accessed on 7 September 2023).
  38. Alshelmani, M.I.; Loh, T.C.; Foo, H.L.; Lau, W.H.; Sazili, A.Q. Biodegradation of Palm Kernel Cake by Cellulolytic and Hemicellulolytic Bacterial Cultures through Solid State Fermentation. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 729852.
  39. Fan, S.-P.; Jiang, L.-Q.; Chia, C.-H.; Fang, Z.; Zakaria, S.; Chee, K.-L. High Yield Production of Sugars from Deproteinated Palm Kernel Cake under Microwave Irradiation via Dilute Sulfuric Acid Hydrolysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 153, 69–78.
  40. Sundu, B.; Kumar, A.; Dingle, J. Palm Kernel Meal in Broiler Diets: Effect on Chicken Performance and Health. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2006, 62, 316–325.
  41. Alimon, A.R. The Nutritive Value of Palm Kernel Cake for Animal Feed. Palm Oil Dev 2004, 40, 12–14.
  42. Canibe, N.; Jensen, B.B. Fermented and Nonfermented Liquid Feed to Growing Pigs: Effect on Aspects of Gastrointestinal Ecology and Growth Performance. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 2019–2031.
  43. Oboh, G. Nutrient Enrichment of Cassava Peels Using a Mixed Culture of Saccharomyces Cerevisae and Lactobacillus Spp Solid Media Fermentation Techniques. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2006, 9.
  44. Ding, Y.; Jiang, X.; Yao, X.; Zhang, H.; Song, Z.; He, X.; Cao, R. Effects of Feeding Fermented Mulberry Leaf Powder on Growth Performance, Slaughter Performance, and Meat Quality in Chicken Broilers. Animals 2021, 11, 3294.
  45. Luo, Z.; Yang, J.; Zhang, J.; Meng, G.; Lu, Q.; Yang, X.; Zhao, P.; Li, Y. Physicochemical Properties and Elimination of the Activity of Anti-Nutritional Serine Protease Inhibitors from Mulberry Leaves. Molecules 2022, 27, 1820.
  46. Hassan, E.G.; Alkareem, A.M.A.; Mustafa, A.M.I. Effect of Fermentation and Particle Size of Wheat Bran on the Antinutritional Factors and Bread Quality. Pak. J. Nutr. 2008, 7, 521–526.
  47. Shahryari, Z.; Fazaelipoor, M.H.; Setoodeh, P.; Nair, R.B.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Ghasemi, Y. Utilization of Wheat Straw for Fungal Phytase Production. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2018, 7, 345–355.
  48. Bidura, I.; Mahardika, I.G.; Suyadnya, I.P.; Partama, I.G.; Oka, I.G.L.; Candrawati, D.; Aryani, I. The Implementation of Saccharomyces spp. n-2 Isolate Culture (Isolation from Traditional Yeast Culture) for Improving Feed Quality and Performance of Male Bali Duckling. Agric. Sci. Res. J. 2012, 2, 486–492.
  49. Ahmad, A.; Anjum, A.A.; Rabbani, M.; Ashraf, K.; Awais, M.M.; Nawaz, M.; Ahmad, N.; Asif, A.; Sana, S. Effect of Fermented Rice Bran on Growth Performance and Bioavailability of Phosphorus in Broiler Chickens. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2019, 53, 361–365.
  50. Parmar, A.B.; Patel, V.R.; Usadadia, S.V.; Rathwa, S.D.; Prajapati, D.R. A Solid State Fermentation, Its Role in Animal Nutrition: A Review. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 4626–4633.
  51. Abdul Manan, M.; Webb, C. Modern Microbial Solid State Fermentation Technology for Future Biorefineries for the Production of Added-Value Products. Biofuel Res. J. 2017, 4, 730–740.
  52. Heiniö, R.-L.; Katina, K.; Wilhelmson, A.; Myllymäki, O.; Rajamäki, T.; Latva-Kala, K.; Liukkonen, K.-H.; Poutanen, K. Relationship between Sensory Perception and Flavour-Active Volatile Compounds of Germinated, Sourdough Fermented and Native Rye Following the Extrusion Process. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 36, 533–545.
  53. Yafetto, L.; Odamtten, G.T.; Birikorang, E.; Adu, S. Protein Enhancement of Yam (Dioscorea Rotundata) Peels with Single-or Co-Inoculation of Aspergillus Niger van Tieghem and Trichoderma Viride Pers Ex Fr. under Solid-State Fermentation. Ghana J. Sci. 2020, 61, 27–37.
  54. Yusuf, N.D.; Ogah, D.M.; Hassan, D.I.; Musa, M.M.; Doma, U.D. Effect of Decorticated Fermented Prosopis Seed Meal (Prosopis Africana) on Growth Performance of Broiler Chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2008, 7, 1054–1057.
  55. Feng, J.; Liu, X.; Xu, Z.R.; Wang, Y.Z.; Liu, J.X. Effects of Fermented Soybean Meal on Digestive Enzyme Activities and Intestinal Morphology in Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 1149–1154.
  56. Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, A.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Yun, T.; Qiu, L.; Yin, Y. Effects of Fermented Rapeseed Meal on Antioxidant Functions, Serum Biochemical Parameters and Intestinal Morphology in Broilers. Food Agric. Immunol. 2016, 27, 182–193.
  57. Yacout, M.H.M. Anti-Nutritional Factors & Its Roles in Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Vet. Anim. Res. 2016, 4, 237–239.
  58. Chiang, G.; Lu, W.Q.; Piao, X.S.; Hu, J.K.; Gong, L.M.; Thacker, P.A. Effects of Feeding Solid-State Fermented Rapeseed Meal on Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Intestinal Ecology and Intestinal Morphology of Broiler Chickens. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 23, 263–271.
  59. Xu, F.Z.; Li, L.M.; Liu, H.J.; Zhan, K.; Qian, K.; Wu, D.; Ding, X.L. Effects of Fermented Soybean Meal on Performance, Serum Biochemical Parameters and Intestinal Morphology of Laying Hens. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 11, 81–86.
  60. Shi, C.; He, J.; Wang, J.; Yu, J.; Yu, B.; Mao, X.; Zheng, P.; Huang, Z.; Chen, D. Effects of Aspergillus Niger Fermented Rapeseed Meal on Nutrient Digestibility, Growth Performance and Serum Parameters in Growing Pigs. Anim. Sci. J. 2016, 87, 557–563.
  61. Vig, A.P.; Walia, A. Beneficial Effects of Rhizopus Oligosporus Fermentation on Reduction of Glucosinolates, Fibre and Phytic Acid in Rapeseed (Brassica Napus) Meal. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 78, 309–312.
  62. Tripathi, M.K.; Mishra, A.S. Glucosinolates in Animal Nutrition: A Review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 132, 1–27.
  63. Tang, J.W.; Sun, H.; Yao, X.H.; Wu, Y.F.; Wang, X.; Feng, J. Effects of Replacement of Soybean Meal by Fermented Cottonseed Meal on Growth Performance, Serum Biochemical Parameters and Immune Function of Yellow-Feathered Broilers. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 393–400.
  64. Xiong, J.L.; Wang, Z.J.; Miao, L.H.; Meng, F.T.; Wu, L.Y. Growth Performance and Toxic Response of Broilers Fed Diets Containing Fermented or Unfermented Cottonseed Meal. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2016, 25, 348–353.
  65. Pulvirenti, A.; De Vero, L.; Blaiotta, G.; Sidari, R.; Iosca, G.; Gullo, M.; Caridi, A. Selection of Wine Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Strains and Their Screening for the Adsorption Activity of Pigments, Phenolics and Ochratoxin A. Fermentation 2020, 6, 80.
  66. Abun, A.; Saefulhadjar, D.; Widjastuti, T.; Haetami, K.; Wiradimadja, R. Energy-Protein-Consentrate as Product of Glucosamine Extract from Shrimp Waste on Performance Ofnative Chicken. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotechnol. 2017, 2, 238801.
  67. Tie, Y.; Li, L.; Liu, J.; Liu, C.; Fu, J.; Xiao, X.; Wang, G.; Wang, J. Two-Step Biological Approach for Treatment of Rapeseed Meal. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 340–348.
  68. Shi, C.; He, J.; Yu, J.; Yu, B.; Huang, Z.; Mao, X.; Zheng, P.; Chen, D. Solid State Fermentation of Rapeseed Cake with Aspergillus Niger for Degrading Glucosinolates and Upgrading Nutritional Value. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 13.
  69. Zhang, Z.; Wen, M.; Chang, Y. Degradation of Glucosinolates in Rapeseed Meal by Lactobacillus Delbrueckii and Bacillus Subtilis. Grain Oil Sci. Technol. 2020, 3, 70–76.
  70. Olukomaiya, O.O.; Fernando, W.C.; Mereddy, R.; Li, X.; Sultanbawa, Y. Solid-State Fermentation of Canola Meal with Aspergillus Sojae, Aspergillus Ficuum and Their Co-Cultures: Effects on Physicochemical, Microbiological and Functional Properties. LWT 2020, 127, 109362.
  71. Yusuf, H.A.; Piao, M.; Ma, T.; Huo, R.; Tu, Y. Effect of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Yeast Supplementation on Anti-Nutritional Factors and Chemical Composition of Fermented Total Mixed Ration Containing Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 556.
  72. Chebaibi, S.; Grandchamp, M.L.; Burgé, G.; Clément, T.; Allais, F.; Laziri, F. Improvement of Protein Content and Decrease of Anti-Nutritional Factors in Olive Cake by Solid-State Fermentation: A Way to Valorize This Industrial by-Product in Animal Feed. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2019, 128, 384–390.
  73. Lateef, A.; Oloke, J.K.; Gueguim Kana, E.B.; Oyeniyi, S.O.; Onifade, O.R.; Oyeleye, A.O.; Oladosu, O.C.; Oyelami, A.O. Improving the Quality of Agro-Wastes by Solid-State Fermentation: Enhanced Antioxidant Activities and Nutritional Qualities. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 2369–2374.
  74. Guo, L.; Lv, J.; Liu, Y.; Ma, H.; Chen, B.; Hao, K.; Feng, J.; Min, Y. Effects of Different Fermented Feeds on Production Performance, Cecal Microorganisms, and Intestinal Immunity of Laying Hens. Animals 2021, 11, 2799.
  75. Purwadaria, T.; Nirwana, N.; Ketaren, P.P.; Pradono, D.I.; Widyastuti, Y. Synergistic Activity of Enzymes Produced by Eupenicillium Javanicum and Aspergillus Niger NRRL 337 on Palm Oil Factory Wastes. BIOTROPIA-Southeast Asian J. Trop. Biol. 2003.
  76. Pinto, G.A.; Leite, S.G.; Terzi, S.C.; Couri, S. Selection of Tannase-Producing Aspergillus Niger Strains. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2001, 32, 24–26.
  77. Mathivanan, R.; Selvaraj, P.; Nanjappan, K. Feeding of Fermented Soybean Meal on Broiler Performance. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2006, 5, 868–872.
  78. Haddar, A.; Hmidet, N.; Ghorbel-Bellaaj, O.; Fakhfakh-Zouari, N.; Sellami-Kamoun, A.; Nasri, M. Alkaline Proteases Produced by Bacillus Licheniformis RP1 Grown on Shrimp Wastes: Application in Chitin Extraction, Chicken Feather-Degradation and as a Dehairing Agent. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2011, 16, 669–678.
  79. Fujita, J.; Shigeta, S.; Yamane, Y.-I.; Fukuda, H.; Kizaki, Y.; Wakabayashi, S.; Ono, K. Production of Two Types of Phytase from Aspergillus Oryzae during Industrial Koji Making. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2003, 95, 460–465.
  80. Taheri, H.R.; Moravej, H.; Tabandeh, F.; Zaghari, M.; Shivazad, M. Screening of Lactic Acid Bacteria toward Their Selection as a Source of Chicken Probiotic. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 1586–1593.
  81. Sun, H.; Tang, J.-W.; Yao, X.-H.; Wu, Y.-F.; Wang, X.; Feng, J. Improvement of the Nutritional Quality of Cottonseed Meal by Bacillus Subtilis and the Addition of Papain. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2012, 14, 563–568.
  82. Hardin, E.; Castro, F.L.S.; Kim, W.K. Keel Bone Injury in Laying Hens: The Prevalence of Injuries in Relation to Different Housing Systems, Implications, and Potential Solutions. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2019, 75, 285–292.
  83. Missotten, J.A.; Michiels, J.; Ovyn, A.; De Smet, S.; Dierick, N.A. Fermented Liquid Feed for Pigs. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2010, 64, 437–466.
  84. Lu, Z.; Zeng, N.; Jiang, S.; Wang, X.; Yan, H.; Gao, C. Dietary Replacement of Soybean Meal by Fermented Feedstuffs for Aged Laying Hens: Effects on Laying Performance, Egg Quality, Nutrient Digestibility, Intestinal Health, Follicle Development, and Biological Parameters in a Long-Term Feeding Period. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102478.
  85. Shi, C.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, Z.; Wang, Y. Solid-State Fermentation of Corn-Soybean Meal Mixed Feed with Bacillus Subtilis and Enterococcus Faecium for Degrading Antinutritional Factors and Enhancing Nutritional Value. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 50.
  86. Seo, S.-H.; Park, S.-E.; Yoo, S.-A.; Lee, K.I.; Na, C.-S.; Son, H.-S. Metabolite Profiling of Makgeolli for the Understanding of Yeast Fermentation Characteristics during Fermentation and Aging. Process Biochem. 2016, 51, 1363–1373.
  87. Iyayi, E.A. Changes in the Cellulose, Sugar and Crude Protein Contents of Agro-Industrial by-Products Fermented with Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus and Penicillium Sp. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2004, 3, 186–188.
  88. Oboh, G.; Akindahunsi, A.A.; Oshodi, A.A. Nutrient and Anti-Nutrient Contents of Aspergillus Niger-Fermented Cassava Products (Flour and Gari). J. Food Compos. Anal. 2002, 15, 617–622.
  89. Begum, M.; Alimon, A.R. Bioconversion and Saccharification of Some Lignocellulosic Wastes by Aspergillus Oryzae ITCC-4857.01 for Fermentable Sugar Production. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 14, 3.
  90. Fazhi, X.; Lvmu, L.; Jiaping, X.; Kun, Q.; Zhide, Z.; Zhangyi, L. Effects of Fermented Rapeseed Meal on Growth Performance and Serum Parameters in Ducks. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 678–684.
  91. Hardini, D. The Nutrient Evaluation of Fermented Rice Bran as Poultry Feed. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2010, 9, 152–154.
  92. Abun, A.; Widjastuti, T.; Haetami, K. The Effect of Fermented Shrimp Waste in the Ration on the Performance of Local Chickens. 2021. Available online: https://www.gajrc.com/media/articles/GAJAB_36_85-91.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2023).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback