Effect of Handling Practices of Liquid Brewer’s Yeast on Microbial Growth During Storage and Risk Unit Suitability as Feed Supplement in Smallholder Dairy Farms
[1]
Peter Alphonce Obuong Alaru, Department of Dairy and Food Science and Technology, Egerton University, Egerton, Kenya; Dairy Research Institute, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Naivasha, Kenya.
[2]
Alfred Anakalo Shitandi, Department of Dairy and Food Science and Technology, Egerton University, Egerton, Kenya.
[3]
Symon Maina Mahungu, Department of Dairy and Food Science and Technology, Egerton University, Egerton, Kenya.
The study was conducted to determine by means of microbiological analyses, handling practices along the supply chain that could hasten deterioration of Liquid brewer’s yeast (LBY); thereby compromising its suitability as feed supplement for lactating dairy cows under smallholder dairy farms. The trial evaluated effect of source of LBY, pH and temperature range on development of microorganisms during storage. Samples were collected from three sources (supplier, distributors and farmers), stored under aerobic condition at 10°C, 20°C and 30°C, then tested at day 0, 7, 14 and 21. Mean square values and levels of significance effect showed that storage time (days) and source of LBY significantly influenced (p<0.05) variation in total viable counts (TVC) whereas, only the source of LBY statistically affected variation in total coliform counts (TCC). Total viable counts was reported as 7.11±0.14, 8.23±0.08 and 8.28±0.04 (log10 CFU/ml) for supplier, distributors and farmers respectively. Total coliform count was highest at the farmers level with a mean of 3.36±0.10 (log10 CFU/ml), distributors was 2.66±0.19 (log10 CFU/ml) and lowest at supplier level with a mean of 1.56±0.33 (log10 CFU/ml). The levels of TVC and TCC were significant (p<0.05) during storage time. Major changes in pH were reported as 4.27±0.06, 4.11±0.06 and 3.91±0.06 at temperatures 10°C, 30°C and 20°C respectively. Findings of this study demonstrate that LBY can be successfully used to supplement dairy cows for a period of one week. Thereafter, a significant drop in pH and steady multiplication of microorganisms is possible. The study recommends need for hygienic handling of LBY by distributors and farmers to reduce risk of feed contamination in smallholder dairy farms.
Liquid Brewer’s Yeast, Feed Supplement, Handling Practices, Microbial Growth, Smallholder Dairy
[1]
FAO. (2016). FAOSTAT. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[2]
Kerby, C., and Vriesekoop, F. (2017). An Overview of the Utilisation of Brewery By-Products as Generated by British Craft Breweries. Beverages, 3 (24), 1-12.
[3]
Georgeson, L., Maslin, M., and Poessinow, M. (2017). The global green economy: a review of concepts, definitions, measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geography and Environment, 4 (1), 1-23.
[4]
Westendorf, M. L., and Wohlt, J. E. (2002). Brewing by-products: their use as animal feeds. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 18 (2), 233–252.
[5]
Mussatto, S. I., Dragone, G., and Roberto, I. C. (2006). Brewers' spent grain: generation, characteristics and potential applications. Journal of Cereal Science, 43 (1), 1-14.
[6]
Chauvel, J., and Granier, R. (1988). Use of liquid beer yeast for pork butcher. Journal of Porcine Research, 20 (1), 369-374.
[7]
Doyle EM. 2007. FRI BRIEFINGS: Microbial Food Spoilage: Losses and Control Strategies. A Brief Review of the Literature. Food Research Institute, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
[8]
Walker, G. M., and Stewart, G. G. (2016). Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the Production of Fermented Beverages. Beverages, 2 (30), 1-12.
[9]
Carter, G. R., and Cole, J. R. (2012). Diagnostic procedure in veterinary bacteriology and mycology (5th Edition ed.). New York: Academic Press.
[10]
SAS Institute Inc. 2001. Base SAS® 9.3 Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
[11]
Canibe, N., and Jensen, B. B. (2012). Fermented liquid feed-Microbial and nutritional aspects and impact on enteric diseases in pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 173 (1), 17–40.
[12]
Mwende, M. C., Wafula, M. J., Simiyu, P., and Omedo, B. B. (2016). Association of on-farm feeds handling practices with fungal growth and Mycotoxin production on feeds in smallholder dairy farms, Nakuru, Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 11 (39), 3741–3750.
[13]
Prasad, R. J., Souri, S., Kumar, S. A., Sharma, G., and Ergae, C. M. (2016). Contaminants and Toxins in Foods and Feeds. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 1 (1), 82–89.
[14]
Čabarkapa, I., Kokić, B., Plavšić, D., Ivanov, D., and Lević, J. (2009). Microbiological safety of animal feeds. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 25 (5), 1155–1162.
[15]
Wafula, W. N., Matofari, W. J., Nduko, M. J., and Lamuka, P. (2016). Effectiveness of the sanitation regimes used by dairy actors to control microbial contamination of plastic jerry cans’ surfaces. International Journal of Food Contamination, 3 (1), 9-16.
[16]
Adamberg, K., Kask, S., Laht, T. M., and Paalme, T. (2003). The effect of temperature and pH on the growth of lactic acid bacteria: A pH-auxostat study. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 85 (1), 171–183.
[17]
Maciorowski, K. G., Herrera, P., Jones, F. T., Pillai, S. D., and Ricke, S. C. (2007). Effects on poultry and livestock of feed contamination with bacteria and fungi. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 133 (2), 109–136.
[18]
McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R., and Heron, S. J. (1991). The Biochemistry of Silage. Marlow, England: GEN, Chalcombe Publications.
[19]
D’Mello, J. P. (2004). Microbiology of animal feeds. In Assessing Quality and Safety of Animal Feeds, Issue 160. Geneva: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (FAO).
[20]
Wang, B., Luo, Y., Myung, K. H., and Liu, J. X. (2014). Effects of storage duration and temperature on the chemical composition, microorganism density, and in vitro rumen fermentation of wet brewers grains. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 27 (6), 832–840.
