Han 1975 Microbial Fermentation of Rice Straw Nutritive Composition and in Vitro Digestibility of The Fermentation
Han 1975 Microbial Fermentation of Rice Straw Nutritive Composition and in Vitro Digestibility of The Fermentation
Han 1975 Microbial Fermentation of Rice Straw Nutritive Composition and in Vitro Digestibility of The Fermentation
4
Copyright 0 1975 American Society for Microbiology Printed in U.S.A.
Rice straw was fermented with Cellulomonas sp. and Alcaligenes faecalis.
Microbial cells and undigested residue, as well as chemically treated (NaOH or
NH4OH) and untreated straws, were analyzed for nutrient composition and in
vitro digestibility. In a typical fermentation, 75% of the rice straw substrate was
digested, and 18.6% of the total substrate weight that disappeared was recovered
as microbial protein. The microbial cell fraction was 37% protein and 5% crude
fiber; the residue was 12% protein and 45% crude fiber. The microbial protein
amino acid profile was similar to alfalfa, except for less cysteine. The microbial
cells had more thiamine and less niacin than Torula yeast. In vitro digestibility
of the microbial protein was 41.2 to 55%; that of cellulose was 52%.
The major limitations of straw as an animal 7-mm screen, was used as a substrate. Part of the
feed are low digestibility and low protein con- chopped straw was treated with 4% NaOH solution
tent. Efforts have been made to increase the (10:1, water-straw) at 100 C for 15 min, the excess
feed value of cereal straws by chemical and caustic liquid was expressed, and the treated straw
was oven-dried (60 C). The other part of the straw
physical treatments, as well as nutrient sup- was sprayed with aqueous ammonia (5 N NH4OH) in
plementation. The digestibility of various crop the amount of 5.2% of the substrate, and kept at am-
straws can be increased by treating with NaOH bient temperature for 30 days before being subjected
or NH4OH, but the low protein still requires to microbial fermentation (20).
nitrogen supplementation. Additions of urea, Fermentation. Fermentations were carried out at
molasses, branched-chain fatty acids, sulfur, 35 C in 40-liter Humfeld fermentors (13). The fermen-
and other minerals have met with varying tation mixture was agitated (140 rpm) and aerated
success (2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17). (0.5 vol of air/vol of medium per min) with sterilized
Recently efforts have been made to produce air. The medium (20 liters) contained 3 to 5% (dry
weight) of rice straw. Separately grown active cultures
high-protein animal feed by microbial fermen- of Cellulomonas sp. and A. faecalis were inoculated.
tation of cellulosic substrates (9, 10). We now
2L Cultu re Medium
19. 5L Mineral soln.
6OOg NaOH-treated rice straw
rCellulomonas sp. & A. faecalis
nine in the latter. Organisms grown on Trypti- TABLE 5. Ruminal metabolism of the products
case soy broth contained a higher essential
amino acid content than those grown on the Gas
production Net VFA
straw-mineral solution. The amino acid profile Product (mmol/8 h/ production
of the mixed culture grown on rice straw was 10 g of rumen (mg/100 ml)
similar to that of alfalfa, except for less cys- content)
teine. Eighty percent of total nitrogen in mi- Rice straw 0.799 207
crobial cells was recovered as protein nitrogen; NaOH-treated straw 0.977 378
the rest was the nucleic acids and other nitroge- NH4OH-treated straw 0.885 345
nous compounds. Fermentation residuea 0.579 312
Table 3 compares the vitamins in microbial Control (alfalfa) 1.307 409
cells grown on straw with Torula yeast (Candida
utilis). The microbial cells contained more thia- aFrom fermentation of NaOH-treated straw.
mine and less niacin than yeast. Folic acid and
pyridoxin in the microbial cells were equivalent products from straw fermentation produced as
to Torula yeast. Thus, microbial cells from much gas or VFA as alfalfa.
straw fermentation may provide vitamins as Thus, the laboratory data indicate that the
well as protein. microbial cell fraction, with its high protein
The in vitro digestibility of protein in the content, may be used as a protein source for the
fermentation products ranged from 41% to 55% nonruminants, and the fermentation residue for
(Table 4). This relatively low protein digestibil- the ruminants.
ity may be attributed to microbial cell walls,