Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 2139–2144 | Cite as

Improving the nutritive value of cassava bioethanol waste using fermented yeast as a partial replacement of protein source in dairy calf ration

  • Anusorn CherdthongEmail author
  • Chanadol Supapong
Regular Articles

Abstract

The aim of this work was to evaluate the influence of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)–fermented cassava bioethanol waste (YECAW) on feed utilization, ruminal fermentation, and microbial population in dairy calves fed a concentrate diet at 1% body weight (BW). Four male Holstein Friesian crossbred calves with an initial BW of 109 ± 6.23 kg were used in this research. The experimental design was a 4 × 4 Latin squared design and the dietary treatments were four levels of YECAW supplementation at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20% concentrate mixture. The YECAW product contained CP at 25.1% dry matter (DM) and NDF and ADF at 65.2 and 40.6% DM, respectively. Inclusion of YECAW did not alter feed intake of rice straw, total intake, nutrient intake, and digestion coefficients (P > 0.05). Ruminal pH and temperature, ruminal ammonia-nitrogen, and blood urea-nitrogen (BUN) were not significant by YECAW levels supplementation (P > 0.05). Increasing YECAW levels did not adversely affect the population of bacteria, protozoa, and fungi and values ranged from 6.5 to 7.0 × 1012, 3.2 to 4.0 × 105, and 6.9 to 7.4 × 103 cells/ml, respectively (P > 0.05). Feeding of YECAW to dairy calves did not affect the total VFA, acetic acid (C2), propionic acid (C3), or butyric acid (C4) proportion (P > 0.05) which ranged from 102.6 to104.6 mmol/l, 70.7 to 72.0, 17.8 to 20.2, and 9.1 to 10.3 mol/ 100 mol, respectively. Therefore, feeding of YECAW is recommended because no adversely affect the utilization of feed and rumen characteristics and might be alternative protein source for ruminants.

Keywords

Cassava waste Ruminal microorganism Ruminant Feed intake Rumen fermentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the Increase Production Efficiency and Meat Quality of Native Beef and Buffalo Research Group, Khon Kaen University (KKU), Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, KKU, and Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through the 19th Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program (contact grant PHD/0067/2559) for the use of the research facilities.

Funding information

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the Increase Production Efficiency and Meat Quality of Native Beef and Buffalo Research Group, Khon Kaen University (KKU), Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, KKU, and Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through the 19th Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program (contact grant PHD/0067/2559) for providing financial support for the research. This work was also supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) contract grant IRG5980010.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. AOAC. 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th ed. Animal feeds: association of official analytical chemists, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Boonnop K, Wanapat M, Nontaso N, Wanapat S. 2009. Enriching nutritive value of cassava root by yeast fermentation. Scientia Agricola, 66, 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Walker ND, Bach A. 2008. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem. Past, present and future. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 145, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherdthong A, Wanapat M, Saenkamsorn A, Supapong C, Anantasook N, and Gunun P. 2015. Improving rumen ecology and microbial population by dried rumen digesta in beef cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 47, 921–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cherdthong A, Pornjantuek B, Wachirapakorn C. 2016. Effect of feeding cassava bioethanol waste on nutrient intake, digestibility, and rumen fermentation in growing goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48, 1369–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherdthong A, Khonkhaeng B, Seankamsorn A, Supapong C, Wanapat M, Gunun N, Gunun P, Chanjula P, Polyorach S. 2018. Effects of feeding fresh cassava root with high-sulfur feed block on feed utilization, rumen fermentation, and blood metabolites in Thai native cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 50, 1365–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crocker, C. L. 1967. Rapid determination of urea nitrogen in serum or plasma without deproteinization. The American Journal of Medical Technology, 33, 361–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Doto SP, Liu JX. 2011. Effects of direct-fed microbials and their combinations with yeast culture on in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 20, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galyean M. 1989. Laboratory Procedure in Animal Nutrition Research. Department of Animal and Life Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA. pp 107–122.Google Scholar
  10. Lynch HA, Martin SA. 2002. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture and Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells on in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 2603–2608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oboh G, Akindahinsi AA. 2003. Biochemical changes in cassava products (flour & gari) subjected to Sacchromyces cerevisiae solid media fermentation. Food Chemistry, 82, 599–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Phoemchalard C, Uriyapongson S, Berg EP. 2014. Effect of cassava bioethanol by-product and crude palm oil in Brahman × Thai native yearling heifer cattle diets: I. Nutrient digestibility and growth performance. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 46, 663–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Polyorach S, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A. 2014. Influence of yeast fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP) and roughage to concentrate ratio on ruminal fermentation and microorganisms using in vitro gas production technique. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 27, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Samuel, M., Sagathewan, S., Thomus, J., Mathen, G., 1997. An HPLC method for estimation of volatile fatty acids of rumen fluid. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 67, 805–807.Google Scholar
  15. Sriroth K, Wanlapatit S, Piyachomkwan K. 2012. Cassava Bioethanol, Bioethanol, Prof. Marco Aurelio Pinheiro Lima (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0008-9, InTech Press, Rijeka, Croatia. 209 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Statistical Analysis System. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6.12. Edition. SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA. 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Van Keulen J, Young BA. 1977. Evaluation of acid insoluble ash as a neutral marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 44, 282–287.Google Scholar
  18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wanapat M, Polyorach S, Chanthakhoun V, Sornsongnern N. 2011. Yeast-fermented cassava chip protein (YEFECAP) concentrate for lactating dairy cows fed on urea-lime treated rice straw. Livestock Science, 139, 258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of AgricultureKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand

Personalised recommendations