Advertisement

Fermented cassava bioethanol waste as substitute of protein in diet for growth performance and carcass evaluation on meat ducks

  • Long Lei
  • Zhi Feng
  • Qiang Li
  • Xiaoqiang Xue
  • Dandan Zhang
  • Zhengya Liu
  • Yulan Liu
  • Ying Ren
  • Shengjun Zhao
Regular Articles

Abstract

The effect of dietary supplementation with fermented cassava bioethanol waste (FCBW) on the growth performance and meat quality was evaluated in 80 15-day-old male Cherry Valley meat ducks with an initial body weight (BW) of 250.67 ± 7.50 g. The experiment has 5 replications and 4 treatments and 4 ducks per treatment. Four groups (groups I, II, III, IV) supplemented with 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% FCBW substituted for part of maize, soybean meal, and bran in basal diet and were fed for 29 days; the metabolizable energy and content of lysine in the four groups were equal. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in average daily weight gain and average daily feed intake among the four groups (P > 0.05). The digestibility rate of dry matter, ash, and phosphorus in group IV was significantly lower than that in group I by 5.23%, 6.25%, and 6.40% respectively (P < 0.05), but the digestibility rate of crude fat was significantly higher than that in group I by 8.30% (P < 0.05). No significant differences were presented among different levels of FCBW supplementation in carcass yield, eviscerated carcass yield, and semi-eviscerated carcass yield (P > 0.05), but 5% FCBW can improve the carcass yield relatively. In conclusion, with dietary supplementation of 5% FCBW, a better growth performance in meat ducks could be achieved.

Keywords

Digestibility rate Fermented cassava bioethanol waste Growth performance Meat duck Meat quality 

Notes

Compliance of ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Animals involved in this study were cared for according to the guidelines of Animal Care and Use Committee of Wuhan Polytechnic University. All standard procedures concerning animal care and management were taken throughout the whole experiment.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Animal Feeds: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Avelara E, Jha R, Beltranena E, Cervantes M, Morales A, Zijlstra RT. 2010. The effect of feeding wheat distillers dried grain with solubles on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 160(1), 73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borin K , Lindberg JE , Ogle RB. 2006. Digestibility and digestive organ development in indigenous and improved chickens and ducks fed diets with increasing inclusion levels of cassava leaf meal, Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 90(5-6):8.Google Scholar
  4. Chen D, Zhang K. 2002. The mechanism for developing pork quality traits, Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  5. Cheng LH, Gao F, Wen RZ, Li JL, Zhou GH. 2010. Effect of creatine monohydrate on carcass characteristics and drip loss in meat duck, Journal of Zhejiang University (Agric. and Life Sci.), 36(6):635–640. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. Colovic R, Pezo L, Palic D. 2015. Prediction of metabolizable energy content of poultry feedstuffs – response surface methodology vs. Artificial neural network approach, Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 21 (5): 1069–1075Google Scholar
  7. Dale N. 1994. National Research Council Nutrient Requirements of Poultry - Ninth Revised Edition, The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 3(1):101-101.Google Scholar
  8. Feng XR, Cui YL, Pang JD, Jiang AG, Hu CW, 2013. Application of microbial fermentation cassava residue feed in broiler breeding, Guang Dong Agricultural Sciences, 40(16), 111–112. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. Garcia M, Dale N. 1999. Cassava root meal for poultry, Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 8(1), 132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. González-Alvarado JM, Jiménezmoreno E, Lázaro R, Mateos GG. 2007. Effect of type of cereal, heat processing of the cereal, and inclusion of fiber in the diet on productive performance and digestive traits of broilers, Poultry Science, 86(8), 1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hetland H, Svihus B, Choct M. 2005. Role of insoluble fiber on gizzard activity in layers, Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 14(14), 38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssen W, Carre B. 1985. Influence of fibre on digestibility of poultry feeds, Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, 71–86.Google Scholar
  13. Jiang J, Pang J, Jiang A, Hu C, Jiang Q, Feng X. 2014. Effects of fermented cassava residue feed replacing complete feed on meat-duck breeding, Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 30(11), 16–20. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  14. Jiménez-Moreno E, Frikha M, Coca-Sinova AD, García J, Mateos GG. 2013. Oat hulls and sugar beet pulp in diets for broilers: 1. Effects on growth performance and nutrient digestibility, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 182(1–4), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leclercq B. 1998. Lysine: specific effects of lysine on broiler production: comparison with threonine and valine, Poultry Science, 77(1), 118–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li TS, Jing WQ, Tang H, Liu HL. 2001. Studies on meat productivity and quality of shandong native duck breeds and beijing duck, Journal of Shandong Agricultural University, 32(1), 23–28. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  17. Liu ZY, Yuan Y. 2005. Analyse and application of the histology and biochemistry factors determinating meat quality, Feed Industry, 26(11), 44–46. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Lonergan EH, Zhang WG, Lonergan SM, Joo ST, Swatland HJ, Lee SK. 2010. Biochemistry of postmortem muscle - lessons on mechanisms of meat tenderization, Meat Science, 86(1), 184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mateos GG, López E, Latorre MA, Vicente B, Lázaro RP. 2007. The effect of inclusion of oat hulls in piglet diets based on raw or cooked rice and maize, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 135(1–2), 100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montagne L, Pluske JR, Hampson DJ. 2003. A review of interactions between dietary fibre and the intestinal mucosa, and their consequences on digestive health in young non-ruminant animals, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 108(1–4), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moran ET. 2006. Anatomy, microbes, and fiber: small versus large intestine:Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 15(1), 154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moran ET, Bilgili SF. 1990. Processing losses, carcass quality, and meat yields of broiler chickens receiving diets marginally deficient to adequate in lysine prior to marketing, Poultry Science, 69(4), 702–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nguyen TA, Ngo HH, Guo WS, Zhang J, Liang S, Lee DJ. 2014. Modification of agricultural waste/by-products for enhanced phosphate removal and recovery: potential and obstacles, Bioresource Technology, 169(5), 750–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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(4), 663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Picoli KP, Murakami AE, Nunes RV, Duarte CRDA, Eyng C, Ospinarojas IC. 2014. Cassava starch factory residues in the diet of slow-growing broilers, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 46(8), 1371–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pirchner F. 2000. Poultry Meat Science: Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 117(6):384–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richards MP. 2003. Genetic regulation of feed intake and energy balance in poultry, Poultry Science, 82(6), 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Şahin T, Kaya Ö, Aksu D, Kaya I. 2013. Effects of dietary supplementation with distiller dried grain with solubles in growing lambs on growth, nutrient digestibility and rumen parameters, Revue De Médecine Vétérinaire, 164(4), 173–178.Google Scholar
  29. Short FJ, Gorton P, Wiseman J, Boorman KN. 1996. Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 59(4):215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sibbald IR, Czarnocki J, Slinger SJ. 1963. The prediction of the metabolizable energy content of poultry feedingstuffs from a knowledge of their chemical composition, Poultry Science, 42(2):486–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith A, Rose SP, Wells RG, Pirgozliev V. 2000. Effect of excess dietary sodium, potassium, calcium and phosphorus on excreta moisture of laying hens, British Poultry Science, 41(5), 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sokol J, Kosieradzka I, Sawoszchwalibog E, Fiedorowicz S. 2010. Nutritive value of wheat distiller’s dried grains with solubles (WDDGS) in nutrition of growing-finishing pigs, Roczniki Naukowe Polskiego Towarzystwa Zootechnicznego., 6(4), 201–122.Google Scholar
  33. Tesseraud S, Peresson R, Lopes J, Chagneau A. 1996. Dietary lysine deficiency greatly affects muscle and liver protein turnover in growing chickens, British Journal of Nutrition, 75(6), 853–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang J, Zang DC, Zuo WY, Zhan YP, Shi S, Duan XJ. 2008. Study on meat productivity and quality of muscovy duck,cherry valley duck and gaoyou duck, Journal of Yangzhou University, 29(3), 72–76. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  35. Wood JD, Warriss PD, Enser MB. 1992. Effects of production factors on meat quality in pigs, Royal Society of Chemistry, British, 106(1), pp. 3–3(1).Google Scholar
  36. Yang WB. 2012. Effects of fermented soybean meal on the growth performance muscle contents muscle quality and serum parameters of cherry valley ducks, Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 27(2), 71–75. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  37. Zhang XX. 2004. The predicting models study of bioavailable energy of beans meals, by-products cereal or distillers dried grain in drake, (unpublished Master Degree thesis, University of Sichuan Agriculture). (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  38. Zhao L, Lou YJ. 2004. Study of the effects of different fiber resources on microflora of cecum of geese, Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 26(1), 103-106. (In Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Long Lei
    • 1
  • Zhi Feng
    • 1
  • Qiang Li
    • 1
  • Xiaoqiang Xue
    • 1
  • Dandan Zhang
    • 1
  • Zhengya Liu
    • 1
  • Yulan Liu
    • 1
  • Ying Ren
    • 1
  • Shengjun Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Hubei Collaborative Innovation Center for Animal Nutrition and Feed Safety, Hubei Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feed ScienceWuhan Polytechnic UniversityWuhanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations