Maturity of poultry waste fermentation product in terms of different physical and chemical changes

Introduction

Fermentation is a bio-secure method of disposal and utilization of mortalities and farm waste. Lactic acid bacteria and yeast transform sugar into lactic acid, which is a naturally low pH effective preservative agent in an anaerobic process (Baba et al., 2022) [1] . Fermentation is very effective in inactivating pathogenic viruses and bacteria. The lactic acid fermentation helps in decontamination of waste with further utilization of the end product as fermented feed for other animals. Thus, the use of fermentation processes for recycling and transformation of wastes may be a good way to ensure the safety of the obtained products and offers a way for further utilization of the disposed end product in future (Vermeiren et al., 2003; Kostrzynska and Bachard, 2006; Leroy et al., 2006) [4,2,3] . Waste accumulated at a place when left as such attracts stray dogs, wild birds and flies and thus creates environmental and biosecurity problem. Hence, there is an urgent need to devise a technically sound and economically viable method for disposal and utilization of poultry farm waste (Baba et al., 2017) [5] . Lactic acid fermentation is a metabolic process influenced by various physical and chemical parameters that determine its efficiency, yield, and product quality.

Materials and Methods

Fermentation of the poultry farm waste was carried out in airtight plastic containers during winter and summer trials. Dead birds and poultry litter in 1:1 ratio were fermented in different combinations. Poultry waste was humidified with tap water in the proportion of 1:1 and the pH were adjusted to 6.5 with 50 percent H 2 SO 4 solution (Baba et al., 2018) [7] . Nine treatments (with three replicates in each treatment) with different individual as well as Dead birds + Poultry litter + Lactobacillus @ 1% + Yeast @ 0.5% Treatment 7

Dead birds + Poultry litter + Lactobacillus @ 1% + Yeast @ 1% Treatment 8

Dead birds + Poultry litter + Lactobacillus @ 0.5% + Yeast @ 0.5% Treatment 9

Dead birds + Poultry litter + Lactobacillus @ 0.5% + Yeast @ 1% Different physical parameters (weight reduction, volume reduction and moisture content changes) and Chemical parameters (pH, EC, TDS, N, C, C/N etc) were studied to assess the final product stability and maturity.

Statistical analysis

The data collected was statistically analysed as per the methods suggested by Snedecor and Cochran (1994) [6] . SPSS software was used for comparing the different means using one way ANOVA.

Results and Discussion

Weight reduction

Comparatively Treatment group T 7 (containing Lactobacillus @ 1% and Yeast @ 1%) showed more weight reduction in overall fermentation process. The overall lower reduction in weight was because the fermentation process was done in airtight containers and air knobs were loosened for evacuation of air only once in a week. Bosch et al. (2015) [13] observed comparable weight loss of 2.2-4.8 percent in the fermentation of organic waste material percent. Scheinemann et al. (2015) [17] also observed similar results (2.44 percent weight reduction) in the lactic acid fermentation of sewage sludge or cattle manure.

Volume Reduction

Addition of different levels of Lactobacillus and Yeast had in general no significant (p<0.05) effect on volume reduction. However as recorded in the present study treatment group T 7 (containing Lactobacillus @ 1% and Yeast @ 1%) had highest weight reduction. The overall lesser reduction in volume was because the fermentation process was done in airtight containers and air knobs were loosened for evacuation of air only once in a week. Merfield (2012) [16] also recorded lower volume reduction in the fermentation of food waste material.

Moisture Content

The percent moisture content of fermented end product was significantly (p<0.05) variable between 44.86±1.92 (T1) and 56.20±2.54 in T2. It was observed that the moisture content was significantly (p<0.05) reduced due to more environmental temperatures. Similarly the different treatment recipes had a significant (p<0.05) effect on moisture content in almost all the treatments. El-Jalil et al. (2008) [8] observed earlier comparable moisture content of around 54.5 percent in lactic acid fermentation of poultry waste manure. However contrary to this, Cai and Pancorbo (1994) [9] observed higher moisture content of 61.4-65.5 percent in poultry farm waste.

Chemical Changes Total Organic Matter

The overall values of TOM suggested that treatment group T 7 (Lactobacillus @ 1% + Yeast @ 1%) produced the best results with better utilization of organic matter. The observed significant (p<0.05) reduction in TOM during summer season indicates effective fermentation during this period. The more reduction in TOM content depicts more microbial degradation and hence more quality generation of end product as reported earlier by Abdelhamid et al. (2004) [15] .

Total Organic Carbon

From the overall values treatment group T 7 was having highest reduction in TOC of 33.27 percent. Bosch et al. (2015) [13] also reported comparative results of TOC reduction. The reduction in TOC during fermentation was due to optimum microbial degradation. It was concluded that T 6 (containing Lactobacillus @ 1% + Yeast @ 0.5%) has shown the best results of microbial degradation in poultry farm waste.

The results indicated that T 2 (containing Lactobacillus @ 1%) has produced the highest N content among all the treatments during both the seasons. It was also observed that season had no significant (p<0.05) effect on the nitrogen content of the fermented end product. However earlier Faid et al. (1995) [14] observed lower nitrogen content of 0.4-0.65 percent in the fermented end product of poultry manure waste. It may be concluded that Lactobacillus @ 1% has produced the best nitrogen mineralization in poultry farm waste.

Carbon: Nitrogen Ratio

The overall results suggested that T 2 (containing Lactobacillus @ 1%) has produced the best C: N ratio among all the treatments. There was no significant (P>0.05) effect of different season on the C: N ratio. It was due to higher nitrogen content and relatively lower total organic carbon content of the end product. Bosch et al. (2015) [13] observed comparable C: N ratio of 19.5-22.3 in the fermented end product of organic waste material.

Electrical Conductivity

T 3 group results suggested that at Lactobacillus added @ 0.5 percent in poultry farm waste has produced the highest ionic activity as reported earlier by Salminen et al. (2004) [12] .

Total Dissolved Salts

The overall values of TDS content were highest in T 3 (3.26 ppt). It was concluded that T 3 (containing Lactobacillus @ 0.5%) has shown the highest ionic activity of dissolved salts as reported earlier by Salminen et al. (2004) [12] . pH More acidic pH indicates more lactic acid activity and hence rapid degradation of organic waste. Hence from the overall a lowest pH was observed in T 4 (4.50±0.21) and T 9 (4.50±0.28) suggested a better anaerobic fermentation of the poultry farm waste. Yang et al. (2006) [11] and Ozyurt et al. (2017) [10] reported comparable results of 4.0-4.6 pH.

Total ash

The overall values suggested that T 7 group (Lactobacillus @ 1% and Yeast @ 1%) was more effective in terms of microbial degradation with the result of 45.63±0.71 percent ash in fermented poultry farm waste (El-Jalil et al. 2008; Cai and Pancorbo, 1994) [8,9] .

Conclusion

Maturity of lactic acid/yeast fermentation product is a key indicator for assessing its final utility as a valuable product. In this regard, a proper physico-chemical balance is required and consequently it was concluded that fermentation product showed a perfect maturity to be used a proper biomanure.

References

1. Baba IA, Banday MT, Khan HM, Khan AA, Sheikh IU. Effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation on nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium level of poultry farm waste. Eco Environ Conserv. 2022;28(1):45-49.
2. Kostrzynska M, Bachand A. Use of microbial antagonism to reduce pathogen levels on produce and meat products: A review. Can J Microbiol. 2006;52:1017-1026.
3. Leroy F, Verluyten J, De Vuyst L. Functional meat starter cultures for improved sausage fermentation. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;106:270-285.
4. Vermeiren L, Devlieghere F, Debevere J. Evaluation of meat-borne lactic acid bacteria as protective cultures for the bio-preservation of cooked meat products. Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;96:149-164.
5. Baba IA, Banday MT, Khan HM, Khan AA, Nighat N. Traditional methods of carcass disposal: A review. J Dairy Vet Anim Res. 2017;5(1):128-128.
6. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames (IA): Iowa State University Press; 1994. p. 254-268.
7. Baba IA, Banday MT, Khan HM, Khan AA, Akhand A, Untoo M. Economics of fermentation of poultry farm waste. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(6):21082112.
8. El-Jalil MH, Zinedine A, Faid M. Some microbiological and chemical properties of poultry wastes manure after lactic acid fermentation. Int J Agric Biol. 2008;10(2):405-411.
9. Cai T, Pancorbo OC. Chemical and microbiological characteristics of poultry processing byproducts, waste and poultry carcasses during lactic acid fermentation. J Appl Poult Res. 1994;3(1):49-60.
10. Ozyurt G, Ozkutuk AS, Mustafa B, Durmuş MB, Boga E. Biotransformation of seafood processing wastes fermented with natural lactic acid bacteria: quality of fermented products and their use in animal feeding. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci. 2017;17:543-555.
11. Yang SY, Ji KS, Baik YH, Kwak WS, McCaskey TA. Lactic acid fermentation of food waste for swine feed. Bioresour Technol. 2006;97(2):1858-1864.
12. Salminen MKH, Rautelin S, Tynkkynen T, Poussa M, Saxelin M, Valtonen V, et al. Lactobacillus bacteremia: clinical significance and patient outcome, with special focus on probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(2):62-69.
13. Bosch M, Hitman A, Hoekstra JF. Fermentation (Bokashi) versus composting of organic waste materials: consequences for nutrient losses and CO₂footprint. Wageningen (Netherlands): Feed Innovation Services; 2015. p. 9-13.
14. Faid M, Karani H, Elmarrakchi A, Achkari-Begdouri A. A biotechnological process for the valorization of fish waste. Bioresour Technol. 1995;49(2):237-241.
15. Abdelhamid MT, Horiuchi T, Oba S. Composting of rice straw with oilseed rape cake and poultry manure and its effect on faba bean (Vicia faba L.) growth and soil properties. Bioresour Technol. 2004;91:183-189.
16. Merfield CN. Treating food preparation waste by Bokashi fermentation vs. composting for cropland application: a feasibility and scoping review. Lincoln (NZ): BHU Future Farming Centre; 2012. p. 1-19.
17. Scheinemann HA, Frank KD, Stöckel S, Hüttl RF, Krüger E. Hygienisation and nutrient conservation of sewage sludge or cattle manure by lactic acid fermentation. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124590. p. 1-21.