MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024544871 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v4n2p1

Nutrient Enhancement of Ground Sago (Metroxylon sagu Rottboll) Pith by Solid State Fermentation with Rhizopus oligosporus for Poultry Feed

2014· article· en· W2024544871 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azilah Ab. Jalil, Norhani Abdullah, Abdul Razak Alimon, Suraini Abd-Aziz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhizopus oligosporusChemistryFood scienceSolid-state fermentationFermentationAmmoniumBranAmmonium molybdateAmmonium phosphateAmmonium chlorideFertilizerRaw materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Utilization of ground sago pith (GSP) as poultry feed ingredient is limited due to its high fibre content and negligible amount of protein. Hence, to enhance its utilization in poultry feed formulations, proper treatment method is necessary. This study was aimed to improve the nutritive value of GSP through solid state fermentation (SSF) using <em>Rhizopus microspores </em>var. <em>oligosporus</em> isolated from fermented cooked soybean seeds (local name <em>tempeh</em>). Fermentation of GSP was first conducted in 500 ml Erlenmeyer flasks to determine the optimized conditions. The substrate was prepared by mixing 50 g of GSP with 50 ml mineral solution and sterilized by autoclaving. The autoclaved GSP was inoculated with 5 ml of <em>R. oligosporus </em>spore suspension (1 × 10<sup>6</sup> spore/mL). Four factors were investigated; moisture levels (35, 45, 55, 65 and 75 ml liquid/50 g substrate), pH values (4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7 and 7.5), incubation temperatures [ambient temperature (28 ± 2), 30, 32.5, 35 and 37.5 °C] and inorganic nitrogen (ammonium sulphate, ammonium phosphate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium chloride and ammonium molybdate) sources at 1 % (w/v) concentrations. Fermentation was conducted for 3 days and the parameters measured were reducing sugar, soluble protein and hydrolytic enzyme activities. The optimized conditions in the flask system were moisture level of 55 ml liquid/50 g substrate, citrate buffer pH 6.0, incubation temperature 30 °C and ammonium sulphate as the inorganic nitrogen source. A time course study for 7 days under optimized conditions showed that the reducing sugar reached maximum from 15.7 ± 0.5 to 183.8 ± 22.6 mg/g (dmb) at 1.5 days and the soluble protein increased from 9.5 ± 0.5 to 11.4 ± 0.7 µg/g (dmb) at the end of fermentation period. Amylase and CMCase activities were maximum at 3 days of fermentation; 3.58 0.73 ± and 4.44 ± 1.50 U/mg protein, respectively but FPase activities did not show apparent changes during the time course study. Using the optimized condition, scaling up in a horizontal drum laboratory fermenter was conducted using 3 kg of GSP in the presence of air at 4 L/min flow rate. The nutrient composition of fermented GSP produced in the fermenter was 89.1% dry matter, 3.4% crude protein, 5.5% crude fiber, 6.3% ash and 3495 kcal/kg gross energy as compared to 88.2% dry matter, 1.6% crude protein, 6.0% crude fiber, 5.3% ash and 3608 kcal/kg gross energy for untreated GSP. Solid state fermentation by <em>R. oligosporus</em> had increased the reducing sugar by 61%, glucose and fructose by more than 100%, soluble protein by 1% and amino acids by 1.5 to 38.2%. Cysteine which was undetected in the unfermented GSP was produced during the fermentation at a concentration of 222 ppm. The other amino acids were increased by 1.5% (arginine), 2.1% (glutamic acid), 16.2% (isoleucine), 16.5% (leucine), 6.2% (phenylalanine), 25.7% (proline), 38.2% (serine), 27.3% (threonine)and 5.7% (tyrosine). The results showed that the nutritive value of GSP was enhanced by solid state fermentation with <em>R. oligosporus</em>.</p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207