Enhancing Rehydrated Rice Husk as Ruminant Feed via Silage Additives: An In Vitro Study
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Rice Husk Preparation
2.2. Design and Silage Preparation
2.3. Chemical Composition Analysis
2.4. Measurement of Ensiling Loss, Fermentation End-Product, and Microbial Populations
2.5. In Vitro Digestibility, Gas Production, and Fermentation Products
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Chemical Composition and Microbial Populations of Raw Rice Husk Before Ensiling
3.2. Chemical Composition of Rehydrated Rice Husk Silages
3.3. Dry Matter Loss and Fermentation End-Products of Rehydrated Rice Husk Silages
3.4. Microbial Populations of Rehydrated Rice Husk Silages
3.5. In Vitro Ruminal Degradation and Gas Production of Rehydrated Rice Husk Silages
3.6. Volatile Fatty Acid Profiles of Rehydrated Rice Husk Silages
4. Discussion
4.1. Chemical Composition and Microbial Populations of Rice Husk Before Ensiling
4.2. Chemical Composition of Rice Husk Silage
4.3. Dry Matter Loss and Fermentation End-Products of Rice Husk Silage
4.4. Microbial Populations of Rice Husk Silage
4.5. In Vitro Ruminal Degradation and Gas Production of Rehydrated Rice Husk Silage
4.6. Volatile Fatty Acid Concentrations of Rice Husk Silage
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhu, X.; Liu, B.; Xiao, J.; Guo, M.; Zhao, S.; Hu, M.; Cui, Y.; Li, D.; Wang, C.; Ma, S.; et al. Effects of different roughage diets on fattening performance, meat quality, fatty acid composition, and rumen microbe in steers. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 885069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pholsen, S.; Khota, W.; Pang, H.; Higgs, D.; Cai, Y. Characterization and application of lactic acid bacteria for tropical silage preparation. Anim. Sci. J. 2016, 87, 1202–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jung, J.S.; Ilavenil, S.; Rajaraman, B.; Kim, K.H.; Yuan, Z.; Jeon, E.J.; Chang, S.W.; Ravindran, B.; Choi, K.C. Valorizing rice husk bio-waste into nutrient-rich feed ingredient through microbial fermentation. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2026, 25, 100336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, S.; Sangwan, P.; Dhankhar, R.M.V.; Bidra, S. Utilization of rice husk and their ash: A review. Res. J. Chem. Environ. Sci. 2013, 1, 126–129. [Google Scholar]
- Rosani, U.; Hernaman, I.; Hidayat, R.; Hidayat, D. Fermentability, digestibility, and gas production of Garut sheep fed maize straw silage-based rations balanced with rice bran and rice husks (in vitro). J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2025, 34, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Duan, H.; Yin, Y.; Li, Y.; Mao, S. Effects of fermented rice husk powder on growth performance, rumen fermentation, and rumen microbial communities in fattening Hu sheep. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1503172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, P.; Henderson, A.; Heron, S. The Biochemistry of Silage; Chalcombe Publications: Marlow, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Muck, R.E.; Nadeau, E.M.G.; Mcallister, T.A.; Santos, M.C.; Kung, L., Jr. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3980–4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Li, F.; Kharazian, Z.A.; Guo, X. Effect of inoculating two bacteriocin-producing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains at ensiling on in vitro rumen fermentation and methane emissions of alfalfa silage with two dry matter contents. Animals 2023, 13, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afonso, R.B.; Adivi, L.N.; Linehan, K.; Donovan, M.O.; Hill, C. Potential of silage inoculants to mitigate methane production from the rumen: A systematic review. J. Dairy Sci. 2026, 109, 2053–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Y.; Bao, J.; Li, W.; Sun, Z.; Gao, R.; Wu, Z.; Yu, Z. Effects of applying lactic acid bacteria and molasses on the fermentation quality, protein fractions and in vitro digestibility of baled alfalfa silage. Agronomy 2021, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, W.; Zhang, L.; Wei, M.; Wu, B. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum (L) and molasses (M) on nutrient composition, aerobic stability, and microflora of alfalfa silage in sandy grasslands. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1358085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Xie, X.; Zhao, G.; He, J.; Zhang, Y. The effects of applying cellulase and laccase on fermentation quality and microbial community in mixed silage containing corn stover and wet brewer’s grains. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1441873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, K.; Chen, H.; Liu, Y.; Hong, Q.; Yang, B.; Wang, J. Lactic acid bacteria strains selected from fermented total mixed rations improve ensiling and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of corn stover silage. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, M. Rice brans, rice bran oils, and rice hulls: Composition, food and industrial uses, and bioactivities in humans, animals, and cells. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 10626−10641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ishida, S.; Kudo, S.; Asano, S.; Hayashi, J. Multi-step pre-treatment of rice husk for fractionation of components including silica. Front. Chem. 2025, 13, 1538797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, L.; Lv, H.; Wang, C.; Zhou, W.; Pian, R.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, X. Dynamics of fermentation quality, physiochemical property and enzymatic hydrolysis of high-moisture corn stover ensiled with sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 298, 122510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaewpila, C.; Khota, W.; Gunun, P.; Kesorn, P.; Kimprasit, T.; Sarnklong, C.; Cherdthong, A. Characterization of green manure sunn hemp crop silage prepared with additives: Aerobic instability, nitrogen value, and in vitro rumen methane production. Fermentation 2022, 8, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, X.; Feng, H.; Guo, G.; Huo, W.; Li, Q.; Xu, Q.; Liu, Q.; Wang, C.; Chen, L. Effects of laccase and lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation quality, nutrient composition, enzymatic hydrolysis, and bacterial community of alfalfa silage. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1035942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galyean, M.L. Laboratory Procedures in Animal Nutrition Research; Department of Animal and Food Sciences Texas Tech University: Lubbock, TX, USA, 1980; p. 177. [Google Scholar]
- Kaewpila, C.; Gunun, P.; Tongkasee, P.; Puangploy, P.; Khota, W. Ensiling characteristics and in vitro rumen fermentation of Sesbania grandiflora pods prepared with inhibitory and stimulatory additives. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 22758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fawcett, J.K.; Scott, J.E. A rapid and precise method for the determination of urea. J. Clin. Pathol. 1960, 13, 156–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozaki, M.; Uchimura, T.; Okada, S. Experimental Manual for Lactic Acid Bacteria; Asakurasyoten: Tokyo, Japan, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Makkar, H.P.; Blümmel, M.; Becker, K. Formation of complexes between polyvinyl pyrrolidones or polyethylene glycols and tannins, and their implication in gas production and true digestibility in in vitro techniques. Br. J. Nutr. 1995, 73, 897–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muizelaar, W.; Bani, P.; Kuhla, B.; Larsen, M.; Tapio, I.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.; Van Gastelen, S. Rumen fluid sampling via oral stomach tubing method. In Methods in Cattle Physiology and Behaviour Research—Recommendations from the SmartCow Consortium; Mesgaran, S.D., Baumont, R., Munksgaard, L., Humphries, D., Kennedy, E., Dijkstra, J., Dewhurst, R., Ferguson, H., Terré, M., Kuhla, B., Eds.; PUBLISSO: Cologne, Germany, 2020; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
- Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Begna, R.; Urge, M.; Negesse, T.; Animut, G. Performances, carcass characteristics, and economic benefit of yearling Hararghe highland rams fed diet containing concentrate mixtures and sugarcane bagasse or rice husk treated with Trichoderma viride and effective microorganisms. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 11, 7686–7697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubwama, M.; Kirabo, O.; Massooto, M.; Yiga, V.A. Mechanical, chemical, biodegradability and rheological characteristics of rice husk fibre-reinforced PLA bio-composites. J. Mater. Sci. Compos. 2025, 6, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fengqin, G.; Haoran, W.; Feng, L.; Ying, D.; Yusha, M.; Heng, J.; Yuanyuan, J.; Hui, Q.; Ping, L. Evaluation of lignocellulose degradation and ethanol production via dilute acid and alkali pretreatment of hybrid Pennisetum. BioResources 2022, 17, 4517–4531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusmiati, R.; Syaputri, Y.; Abun; Safitri, R. Pretreatment and fermentation of lignocellulose from oil palm fronds as a potential source of fibre for ruminant feed: A review. J. Sustain. Agric. Environ. Publ. 2024, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Dong, Z.; Li, J.; Chen, L.; Bai, Y.; Jia, Y.; Shao, T. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation dynamics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of rice straw silage. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, M.; Zi, X.; Zhou, H.; Lv, R.; Tang, J.; Cai, Y. Silage fermentation and ruminal degradation of cassava foliage prepared with microbial additive. AMB Express 2019, 9, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, D.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, J.; Dong, Z.; Li, J.; Shao, T. Synergistic effects of exogenous Lactobacillus plantarum and fibrolytic enzymes on fermentation quality, fiber degradation, and in vitro digestibility of napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) silage. Agronomy 2025, 15, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Ma, Y.; Khan, M.Z.; Xiao, J.; Alugongo, G.M.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Cao, Z. A combination of lactic acid bacteria and molasses improves fermentation quality, chemical composition, physicochemical structure, in vitro degradability and rumen microbiota colonization of rice straw. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 900764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kung, J.L.; Shaver, R.D.; Grant, R.J.; Schmidt, R.J. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4020–4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P.; Bai, B.; Zhou, T.; Wang, W.; Zhang, L.; Wei, X.; Li, H.; Wang, Z. Effects of cellulase and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum on silage performance, microbial community composition and volatiles of Caragana korshinskii. BMC Microbiol. 2025, 25, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiajie, Z.; Xiaochen, D.; Junfeng, H.; Mingjiu, W.; Gentu, G. Analysis of the formation mechanism and regulation pathway of oat silage off-flavor based on microbial-metabolite interaction network. BMC Microbiol. 2025, 25, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutaryono, Y.A.; Putra, R.A.; Mardiansyah, M.; Yuliani, E.; Harjono, H.; Mastur, M.; Sukarne, S.; Enawat, L.S.; Dahlanuddin, D. Mixed leucaena and molasses can increase the nutritional quality and rumen degradation of corn stover silage. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2023, 7710, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghebriel, A.W.; Kellogg, D.W.; Miller, D.D. Effect of sodium hydroxide treatment of sorghum silage on lactation of cows and on in vitro digestion. J. Dairy Sci. 1981, 64, 792–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iannaccone, F.; Alborino, V.; Dini, I.; Balestrieri, A.; Marra, R.; Davino, R.; Di Francia, A.; Masucci, F.; Serrapica, F.; Vinale, F. In vitro application of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes from Trichoderma Spp. to improve feed utilization by ruminants. Agriculture 2022, 5, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, H.; Han, Z.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Dong, Z.; Zhao, J.; Wang, S.; Shao, T. Effect of fibrolytic enzymes, cellulolytic fungi and lactic acid bacteria on fermentation characteristics, structural carbohydrate composition and in vitro digestibility of rice straw silage. Fermentation 2022, 8, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaewpila, C.; Gunun, P.; Srikacha, N.; Suntara, C.; Khota, W. Effects of inoculating lignin-degrading bacteria isolated from ruminant rectum on in vitro rumen diet degradation. Fermentation 2026, 12, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.L.; Wang, J.K.; Wu, Y.M.; Liu, J.X. Effects of chemical treatments of rice straw on rumen fermentation characteristics, fibrolytic enzyme activities and populations of liquid- and solid-associated ruminal microbes in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 141, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgavi, D.P.; Forano, E.; Martin, C.; Newbold, C.J. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Anim. Int. J. Anim. Biosci. 2010, 4, 1024–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, H.; Zhou, J.; Yang, F. Silage-induced modulation of rumen microbiota: A review of species-specific impacts on productivity and health. npj Vet. Sci. 2026, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Item | Rice Husk | |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical composition (% on DM) | DM, % | 89.63 |
| OM | 95.28 | |
| CP | 3.14 | |
| NDF | 88.13 | |
| ADF | 64.72 | |
| ADL | 28.18 | |
| pH | 5.80 | |
| Microbial counts (CFU/g FM) | Lactic acid bacteria | 1.00 × 104 |
| Aerobic bacteria | 8.00 × 103 | |
| Coliform | 8.80 × 104 | |
| Mold | ND | |
| In vitro parameters | IVDMD, g/kg DM | 94.15 |
| IVNDFD, g/kg DM | 46.97 | |
| IVADFD, g/kg DM | 77.02 | |
| Total gas production (mL/g DM) | 24.25 | |
| Methane production (mg/g DM) | 7.92 | |
| Methane production (mg/g IVDMD) | 83.59 | |
| Acetic acid (mmol/L) | 21.54 | |
| Propionic acid (mmol/L) | 17.42 | |
| Butyric acid (mmol/L) | 6.83 | |
| valeric acid (mmol/L) | 0.77 |
| Treatments | DM | OM | CP | NDF | ADF | ADL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % on DM | |||||
| Control | 40.81 ± 0.85 | 86.18 ± 0.26 c | 3.93 ± 0.05 | 89.32 ± 1.22 a | 62.68 ± 0.79 ab | 26.94 ± 1.16 a |
| MB | 38.73 ± 0.85 | 90.08 ± 0.36 a | 3.46 ± 0.43 | 83.52 ± 0.67 b | 61.31 ± 0.44 ab | 25.64 ± 0.75 ab |
| AC | 38.33 ± 0.83 | 88.14 ± 0.19 b | 3.44 ± 0.08 | 90.91 ± 0.27 a | 63.61 ± 1.38 ab | 26.98 ± 1.18 a |
| LC | 40.20 ± 1.39 | 88.65 ± 0.37 ab | 3.86 ± 0.55 | 90.22 ± 2.10 a | 64.08 ± 3.66 a | 27.08 ± 3.34 a |
| AC + LC | 39.75 ± 1.48 | 89.91 ± 2.11 a | 3.72 ± 0.05 | 90.99 ± 2.47 a | 63.59 ± 1.32 ab | 27.30 ± 1.19 a |
| AC + LC + MB | 40.60 ± 1.81 | 89.91 ± 0.83 a | 3.84 ± 0.32 | 83.73 ± 1.07 b | 60.69 ± 1.21 b | 25.70 ± 1.42 ab |
| CM | 39.33 ± 2.49 | 85.96 ± 0.38 c | 3.65 ± 0.45 | 72.24 ± 1.49 c | 54.53 ± 1.59 c | 23.28 ± 1.04 b |
| SEM | 0.750 | 0.450 | 0.169 | 0.753 | 0.895 | 0.828 |
| p-value | 0.210 | <0.001 | 0.292 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.032 |
| Treatments | DM Loss | pH | Lactic Acid | Acetic Acid | Propionic Acid | Butyric Acid | Ammonia-N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g/kg | g/kg DM | g/kg DM | |||||
| Control | 20.91 ± 1.23 ab | 4.46 ± 0.03 a | 12.66 ± 7.42 d | 17.30 ± 6.99 b | 5.02 ± 0.51 b | 17.26 ± 8.04 a | 0.25 ± 0.06 a |
| MB | 6.81 ± 0.15 c | 3.78 ± 0.02 c | 38.32 ± 2.34 a | 25.24 ± 1.52 a | 6.58 ± 0.12 a | 2.77 ± 0.06 c | 0.02 ± 0.01 e |
| AC | 23.66 ± 1.23 ab | 4.04 ± 0.02 b | 17.50 ± 1.80 cd | 15.99 ± 0.80 b | 4.84 ± 0.13 b | 11.98 ± 0.78 b | 0.14 ± 0.03 bc |
| LC | 15.72 ± 3.06 bc | 4.15 ± 0.23 b | 20.00 ± 2.69 c | 15.51 ± 1.57 b | 5.32 ± 0.63 b | 17.87 ± 7.16 a | 0.10 ± 0.01 cd |
| AC + LC | 28.41 ± 2.85 a | 4.23 ± 0.24 b | 27.21 ± 8.60 b | 14.69 ± 0.88 b | 5.20 ± 0.22 b | 18.15 ± 4.04 a | 0.18 ± 0.07 b |
| AC + LC + MB | 7.65 ± 0.51 c | 3.75 ± 0.05 c | 23.38 ± 1.07 bc | 13.68 ± 0.37 b | 5.09 ± 0.58 b | 1.96 ± 0.08 c | 0.03 ± 0.02 e |
| CM | 4.48 ± 0.30 c | 2.00 ± 0.00 d | 2.93 ± 0.26 e | 22.50 ± 1.74 a | 4.71 ± 0.30 b | 2.49 ± 0.34 c | 0.07 ± 0.02 de |
| SEM | 3.789 | 0.065 | 2.285 | 1.442 | 0.204 | 1.683 | 0.019 |
| p-value | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Treatments | LAB | Aerobic Bacteria | Coliform Bacteria | Molds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| log10 CFU/g FM | ||||
| Control | 5.32 ± 0.98 b | 4.78 ± 0.07 a | ND | ND |
| MB | 6.06 ± 0.09 ab | 3.98 ± 0.05 b | ND | ND |
| AC | 6.26 ± 1.02 ab | 4.01 ± 0.08 b | ND | ND |
| LC | 5.63 ± 0.99 ab | 3.72 ± 0.10 c | ND | ND |
| AC + LC | 6.77 ± 0.13 a | 4.02 ± 0.12 b | ND | ND |
| AC + LC + MB | 6.39 ± 0.27 ab | 4.07 ± 0.31 b | ND | ND |
| CM | ND c | ND d | ND | ND |
| SEM | 0.352 | 0.068 | - | - |
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | - | - |
| Treatments | IVDMD | IVNDFD | IVADFD | GP | Methane Production | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g/kg DM | mL/g DM | mg/g DM | mg/g IVDMD | |||
| Control | 80.16 ± 9.77 c | 54.92 ± 11.13 b | 40.53 ± 8.82 c | 33.91 ± 3.33 b | 6.40 ± 0.55 cd | 80.65 ± 13.09 ab |
| MB | 144.54 ± 12.14 b | 62.07 ± 14.93 ab | 97.36 ± 6.91 a | 33.23 ± 1.81 b | 10.28 ± 1.02 b | 71.12 ± 3.70 abc |
| AC | 77.20 ± 1.22 c | 46.68 ± 15.49 b | 51.42 ± 2.79 bc | 25.38 ± 3.05 b | 5.56 ± 1.81 d | 71.73 ± 22.32 abc |
| LC | 96.13 ± 3.16 c | 81.04 ± 20.60 a | 84.93 ± 40.92 ab | 32.20 ± 5.40 b | 9.22 ± 2.37 bc | 95.61 ± 22.98 a |
| AC + LC | 75.37 ± 33.63 c | 46.88 ± 24.87 b | 68.30 ± 16.33 abc | 26.97 ± 5.80 b | 5.78 ± 1.58 d | 85.98 ± 28.83 ab |
| AC + LC + MB | 129.59 ± 6.48 b | 46.72 ± 12.06 b | 56.07 ± 2.77 bc | 23.68 ± 8.70 b | 5.70 ± 1.70 d | 44.07 ± 13.14 c |
| CM | 239.12 ± 25.34 a | 66.89 ± 17.03 ab | 45.45 ± 7.10 c | 56.81 ± 13.87 a | 14.08 ± 3.22 a | 58.66 ± 10.72 bc |
| SEM | 8.742 | 5.972 | 8.961 | 3.753 | 0.977 | 8.969 |
| p-value | <0.001 | 0.024 | 0.016 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.021 |
| Treatments | TVFA | Acetic Acid | Propionic Acid | Butyric Acid | Valeric Acid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mmol/L | % of TVFA | ||||
| Control | 48.62 ± 1.40 b | 46.19 ± 1.09 | 38.11 ± 2.16 | 14.19 ± 1.38 a | 1.51 ± 0.19 a |
| MB | 58.65 ± 3.12 a | 47.51 ± 0.53 | 36.98 ± 1.58 | 13.98 ± 0.96 a | 1.53 ± 0.12 a |
| AC | 49.89 ± 6.05 b | 47.77 ± 0.24 | 36.93 ± 2.49 | 13.77 ± 2.56 a | 1.53 ± 0.13 a |
| LC | 63.58 ± 1.89 a | 47.14 ± 1.26 | 38.26 ± 0.55 | 13.26 ± 0.91 ab | 1.35 ± 0.03 a |
| AC + LC | 49.52 ± 3.32 b | 45.89 ± 0.54 | 39.87 ± 0.96 | 12.85 ± 0.54 abc | 1.39 ± 0.03 a |
| AC + LC + MB | 47.49 ± 4.17 b | 47.78 ± 2.80 | 39.89 ± 2.96 | 10.97 ± 0.67 c | 1.37 ± 0.10 a |
| CM | 61.28 ± 3.62 a | 49.33 ± 1.35 | 38.88 ± 1.56 | 11.12 ± 0.39 bc | 0.68 ± 0.05 b |
| SEM | 1.844 | 0.752 | 1.003 | 0.614 | 0.053 |
| p-value | <0.001 | 0.180 | 0.364 | 0.015 | <0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Kaewpila, C.; Maensathit, J.; Patarapreecha, P.; Khota, W. Enhancing Rehydrated Rice Husk as Ruminant Feed via Silage Additives: An In Vitro Study. Animals 2026, 16, 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16121835
Kaewpila C, Maensathit J, Patarapreecha P, Khota W. Enhancing Rehydrated Rice Husk as Ruminant Feed via Silage Additives: An In Vitro Study. Animals. 2026; 16(12):1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16121835
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaewpila, Chatchai, Julasinee Maensathit, Pairote Patarapreecha, and Waroon Khota. 2026. "Enhancing Rehydrated Rice Husk as Ruminant Feed via Silage Additives: An In Vitro Study" Animals 16, no. 12: 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16121835
APA StyleKaewpila, C., Maensathit, J., Patarapreecha, P., & Khota, W. (2026). Enhancing Rehydrated Rice Husk as Ruminant Feed via Silage Additives: An In Vitro Study. Animals, 16(12), 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16121835

