Next Article in Journal
Metschnikowia pulcherrima as a Tool for Sulphite Reduction and Enhanced Volatile Retention in Noble Rot Wine Fermentation
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs as Bioreactors to Produce Hydrogen and Capture Carbon Dioxide
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/fermentation11090492
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Production Technology of Fermented Distiller’s Grains and Its Effect on Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens

by
Ru Jia
1,*,
Simeng Lu
1,2,
Tao Li
1,
Meng Li
1,
Guohua Zhang
1,
Lan Wang
1 and
Shimeng Huang
3
1
School of Life Science, Shanxi University, 92 Wucheng Road, Taiyuan 030006, China
2
School of Nursing, Xi’an Innovation College of Yan’an University, Xi’an 710100, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2025, 11(9), 492; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11090492 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 14 June 2025 / Revised: 3 July 2025 / Accepted: 4 July 2025 / Published: 23 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Industrial Fermentation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The high acidity, alcohol, and mycotoxin levels in distiller’s grains (DGs) limit its application in practical production. To address these issues, a new DG fermentation technique was developed in this research. Firstly, four strains were selected and the fermentation conditions were optimized to ferment the fresh DGs. When the inoculum was set at 8%, the fermentation temperature was maintained at 35 °C, the fermentation time lasted for 48 h, the bacterial mixture ratio (Bacillus subtilis ASAG 216: Lactobacillus acidophilus G1: Saccharomyces cerevisiae ANP 101: Streptococcus thermophilus EFR 046) was 1:1:2:1, and the contents of crude protein in fermented DGs (FDGs) were the highest, so we chose these fermentation conditions to ferment the DGs. In addition, under these fermentation conditions, the amino acids were significantly (p < 0.05) increased while the concentrations of crude fiber and mycotoxins contents were significantly (p < 0.05) decreased in FDGs than in DGs. Subsequently, the nutritional value of DGs and FDGs were evaluated using a two-step in vitro digestion method. The digestibility of dry matter, protein, and crude fiber increased by 16.23%, 13.54%, and 64.09%, respectively, in FDGs compared to that in DGs. Finally, laying hens were treated by adding 0%, 1%, 2%, and 4% FDG to the basal diet for 4 weeks. The results demonstrated that addition of 2% FDG in the diet could significantly (p < 0.05) increase the laying rate of hens compared to that fed the control diet, while addition of 4% FDG in the diet could remarkably (p < 0.05) reduce the rate of broken eggs compared to the other groups. There were no significant (p > 0.05) differences in other indices. These indicates that FDG has potential as a functional feed additive to enhance animal productivity.

1. Introduction

Distiller’s grains (DGs) are the liquor residue obtained from the fermentation and distillation of sorghum, wheat, corn, cereals, and other raw materials [1]. DGs contain substantially higher levels of proteins, crude fiber, and amino acids, demonstrating 2–3 times higher nutritional value than raw materials [2,3,4,5]. According to the report from the National Bureau of Statistics by Tao et al. [6], the total profit of the brewing industry reached CNY 194.933 billion in China in 2021. Notably, the annual DGs production from baijiu has remained above 21 million tons in the last decade, accounting for approximately 87% of the brewing industry [6,7]. Thus, the potential for resource development is enormous. However, the current utilization rate of DGs remains suboptimal, primarily due to its high moisture, acidity, and alcohol content, which can easily lead to spoilage. If stored improperly, DGs are susceptible to contamination by harmful bacteria and can produce high levels of mycotoxins [8,9]. This not only wastes resources but also damages the surrounding environment, which is the primary problem that DG resources are facing at this stage. There are many ways to utilize DG resources, including the cultivation of microbial strains, use as animal feed, application as agricultural fertilizers, for brewing vinegar, as combustion for heat and electricity production, for fermentation for biogas, and for the production of chemical or nutrient substances such as proteins, amino acids, and butanedioic acid [10,11,12,13]. Among these, using DGs as animal feed is an efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly method that completely utilizes DGs without wasting valuable ingredients. Furthermore, secondary fermentation of DGs with beneficial microorganisms can effectively utilize its water, acidity, and protein content [14], offering a novel technological approach to DG utilization [15].
Fermented distillers’ grains (FDGs) are often used in ruminants due to their high crude fiber content. Among these, distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGSs) have been extensively researched [16]. For instance, including 0–50% DDGSs in the diets of lambs showed no adverse effects on growth performance, slaughter performance, or carcass quality [17,18]. In water buffaloes, adding 22.5% DDGSs resulted in the highest average daily gain and crude protein digestibility [19]. Different animals exhibit varying utilization of FDGs, and several studies have also focused on poultry [20,21]. Diets containing 20% white, beer, or rice DGs promoted broiler feeding to varying degrees [22]. Supplementation of 8% DDGS in broiler diets achieved maximum slaughter rates, and the addition of exogenous enzymes (carbohydrases, proteases, and phytases) further improved early feed conversion [23]. Additionally, a diet of 14.35% DDGS with Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NSMJ56 (5 × 108 CFU/kg of diet) improved some parameters associated with egg freshness and antioxidant capacity [24]. A high level (20%) of DDGS in the diet supplemented with enzyme cocktail and Saccharomyces cerevisiae fortification significantly improved eggshell thickness by 1.44–1.72% [25]. However, many researchers [26,27] have primarily focused on changes in moisture, crude protein, crude fat, fiber, and trace elements, often neglecting mycotoxins levels. In addition, different origins of DG substrates are suitable for different fermentation strains and fermentation conditions [28]. Furthermore, different sources of DG substrates are suited to various fermentation strains and conditions, leading to differences in nutrient composition pre- and post-fermentation. The optimal proportion of FDG for different animals remains unclear [29].
Based on the above, this study primarily utilized fresh DG from Shanxi Fen Winery as the experimental raw material for the secondary fermentation process aimed at increasing protein content and reducing crude fiber and mycotoxin levels in DGs. The optimal fermentation conditions were determined by comparing the nutrient contents of DGs before and after fermentation. Subsequently, both in vitro and in vivo experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of FDG application. Different ratios of FDG were added to the diets of laying hens to observe the effects on their growth performance and egg quality. This experiment provided a scientific theoretical basis for the application of FDG in laying hen.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of FDG

The fresh DGs, which contained 14.92% crude protein and 17.64% crude fiber, were provided by Shanxi Fen Winery (Shanxi Xinghuacun Fenjiu Group Co., Ltd., Fenyang, Shanxi, China). Four strains—Bacillus subtilis ASAG 216, Lactobacillus acidophilus G1, Saccharomyces. cerevisiae ANP 101, and Streptococcus. thermophilus EFR 046—were selected from our laboratory.
The FDG was manufactured by fermentation, using DG as the basic raw material. Firstly, we selected 50 g of fresh DGs and added it to a 100 g anaerobic fermentation bag (Wuluo biotech., Beijing, China), then incubated that in a constant temperature incubator (SK-767, ZhuJin Analytical Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) at 45 °C for 1 day. Then, we optimized the fermentation conditions based on the contents of crude protein after fermentation. The fermentation conditions included the inoculation amount and mixture ratio of the bacteria, fermentation temperature and time. The inoculation amount of the bacteria was chosen from 5%, 8%, 12%, and 15%. The bacterial mixture ratio (B. subtilis ASAG 216: L. acidophilus G1: S. cerevisiae ANP 101: S. thermophilus EFR 046) was selected from 1:1:1:1, 2:1:1:1, 1:2:1:1, 1:1:2:1, and 1:1:1:2. The fermentation temperature gradients were set at 20 °C, 25 °C, 30 °C, and 35 °C with fermentation time of 24, 36, 48, and 72 h.

2.2. Chemical Analysis of DG and FDG

The DG and FDG samples were crushed using a laboratory crusher (GX-10B, GaoXin Industry & Trade Co., Ltd., Yongkang, Zhejiang, China) and were passed through a 1 mm sieve (GaoXin). The nutritional values of the DG and FDG were analyzed according to the methods prescribed by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [30] for dry matter (AOAC 934.01, 2023), crude fiber (AOAC 978.10, 2023), and crude ash (AOAC 942.05, 2023). Dry matter content was determined by drying the samples at 105 °C to a constant weight. Crude fiber was assessed via a sequential digestion process with acid and alkali, followed by ignition. Crude ash content was determined by igniting the samples in a muffle furnace at 550 °C. To ensure accuracy, each sample was weighed at 10 g and was analyzed in triplicate.
The crude protein content (AOAC 954.01, 2023) of DG and FDG was determined using the Kjeldahl method, as described by the AOAC [30]. The error was calculated based on three identical samples (5 g each). The total nitrogen content was quantified and multiplied by a factor of 6.25 to convert to protein. The optimal fermentation conditions for FDG production were assessed based on the protein content of DGs and FDG. FDG was produced under these optimal conditions.
The amino acid contents were determined using acid hydrolysis with 6 mol/L HCl (AOAC 994.12, 2023) [30] and were measured using an amino acid analyzer (Hitachi L-8800, Tokyo, Japan). Performic acid oxidation was performed prior to acid hydrolysis to determine the methionine concentration. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate to ensure accuracy and reproducibility.
Mycotoxin levels were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Shimadzu LC-10AT, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) described by Binder et al. [31]. For each sample, 25 g samples were extracted with 100 mL of methanol/water (80:20 v/v) using an ultrasonic bath for 30 min. The extract was then centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min and filtered through a 0.45 µm membrane filter. The filtered extract was further cleaned using an immunoaffinity column (Commercial kit, Clover Technology Group, Beijing, China) specific for the mycotoxins of interest. After cleaning, the eluent was concentrated to dryness and reconstituted in 1 mL of mobile phase for HPLC analysis. The HPLC system consisted of a Diamonsil® Plus C18 column (4.6 × 250 mm, 5 μm, Beijing, China) with a mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile/methanol/water (0:45:55 v/v/v for aflatoxin; 46:8:46 v/v for zearalenone (ZEN); 0:80:20 v/v for deoxynivalenol (DON)) at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. Detection was performed using a UV detector and a fluorescence detector set at appropriate wavelengths for mycotoxin. Each sample was processed and analyzed in triplicate to ensure accuracy and reproducibility.

2.3. In Vitro Digestion Analysis of DG and FDG

We primarily modified the method described by Liu et al. [32], employing the pepsin–trypsin two-step method to simulate the digestion process of DG and FDG in laying hens. Initially, 5 g of the sample, 500 mg of pepsin (P8390, Solarbio, Beijing, China), and 50 mL of 0.1 mol HCl/54 mol NaCl solution were added. This mixture was maintained in a water bath shaker at a constant temperature of 40 °C and 120 rpm for 1 h to simulate gastric juice digestion. Subsequently, the pH of the pepsin-digested samples was adjusted to 7.0 with NaOH. A buffer containing 50 mg of trypsin (P7340, Solarbio) was added to 1 mL of the samples, which were sealed with plastic wrap. The samples were then placed in a water bath oscillator within a 40 °C incubator (SHA-C, ZhuJin Analytical Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) and maintained at 120 rpm for 6 h to simulate digestion in the small intestine. After digestion, sulfosalicylic acid was added to the digestion residue, left at room temperature for 30 min, and then filtered. The residues were dried to constant weight in an oven at 105 °C with pre-weighted of filter paper. The dry matter, crude protein, and crude fiber content were then weighed and determined. Finally, the degradation rates of dry matter, crude protein, and crude fiber in the digested DG were calculated and compared.

2.4. Birds and Feeding Management

A total of 720 Hy-Line brown laying hens (270 days old; 1.97 kg average BW; 93.25% mean egg production) were randomly allocated to four dietary treatments with six replicates per group. Each replicate comprised ten stainless-steel suspended cages (45 × 45 × 45 cm) housing three hens. After a 7-day adaptation, hens received treatment diets for 4 weeks. Dietary treatments included a control (CON) diet and FDG-supplemented diets at 1%, 2%, and 4%. The basal diet composition and nutritional profiles appear in Table 1. All diets met nutrient requirements for laying hens and conformed to the regulations of the National Research Council (NRC, 2012). Under environmental conditions (22 ± 2 °C with a 12 h light), the hens were allowed ad libitum access to the experimental diets and water. This protocol was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of Shanxi University.

2.5. Sample Collection in Animal Feeding Trial

During the experiment, feed consumption was recorded weekly by calculating the average daily feed intake (ADFI) for the 10 hens in each replicate. In each replicate group, the weight and quantity of eggs produced, as well as the number of broken and irregular eggs (including all types of deformed eggs, super large eggs, and super small eggs), were recorded daily. After the experiment, the laying rate and the egg broken rate were calculated.

2.6. Egg Quality Determination

Weekly, 3 eggs were randomly selected from each replicate group. According to the Chinese agricultural industry standard NY/T 823-2020 [33], the albumen height, yolk color, Haugh unit, eggshell thickness, and eggshell strength of the eggs were measured and counted using an automatic multi-functional chicken quality tester (DET6500, Bulader Co., Ltd., Beijing, China).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 7.0 (Graph-Pad software, Boston, MA, USA). The least significant difference (p < 0.05) was calculated using one-way ANOVA (SPSS 20.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Confirmation of DG Fermentation Conditions

To determine the optimal fermentation conditions for DG, the crude protein contents of FDG under various conditions were analyzed and compared (Figure 1). A significant increase (p < 0.05) in the crude protein content of the FDG group was observed as the inoculum amount increased from 5% to 8–15% (Figure 1A). Additionally, a rise in fermentation temperature led to a significant increase (p < 0.05) in protein content, with a maximum of 21% reached at 35 °C (Figure 1B). Furthermore, crude protein levels were significantly higher (p < 0.05) after 36–72 h of fermentation compared to 24 h, with the maximum content of 19.46% achieved at 48 h (Figure 1C). The co-culture of B. subtilis ASAG 216, L. acidophilus G1, S. cerevisiae ANP 101, and S. thermophilus EFR 046, tested at various inoculation ratios (1:1:1:1, 2:1:1:1, 1:2:1:1, 1:1:2:1, and 1:1:1:2), showed that the highest crude protein content of 20.15% was achieved when the ratio was 1:1:2:1 (Figure 1D). Therefore, the optimal fermentation conditions were determined to be as follows: the inoculum amount was 8%, the fermentation temperature was at 35 °C, the fermentation time was 48 h, and the bacteria mixture ratio of B. subtilis ASAG 216, L. acidophilus G1, S. cerevisiae ANP 101, and S. thermophilus EFR 046 was 1:1:2:1. Under these conditions, the protein content of FDG reached its peak, so these can be considered the optimal parameters for fermentation.

3.2. Chemical Analysis of DG and FDG

It was found that after fermentation, the dry matter and the crude protein contents of the DG group were increased (Table 2). The crude protein content, in particular, was significantly enhanced from 14.92% to 20.44%, marking a 40% increase compared to the pre-fermentation period (p < 0.05). Moreover, both the crude fiber and the ash contents in the FDG group were decreased (p < 0.05), with the crude fiber content being substantially reduced from 17.64% to 12.91%. Thus, it was observed that all nutrients of DG were ameliorated after fermentation. Additionally, the contents of mycotoxins in the DG group were reduced (Table 2); specifically, the contents of ZEN and DON in the FDG group were significantly decreased by 45.49% and 68.53%, respectively (p < 0.05), and aflatoxin was reduced from 8.93 ppb to 3.21 ppb. Therefore, it was demonstrated that the strain selected could significantly reduce the mycotoxins contents during the fermentation of DG (p < 0.05). Regarding amino acid changes, Table 3 indicates that the total amino acid content of DG after fermentation was increased from 11.75% to 15.82%, representing a 34.63% increase compared to the pre-fermentation levels, with a very significant increase (p < 0.05). Significant increase were also found in threonine, glutamic acid, and lysine contents of FDG compared to that of DG (p < 0.05).

3.3. In Vitro Evaluation of DG and FDG

The results of in vitro digestion tests on DG before and after fermentation are presented in Table 4. The digestibility of dry matter, protein, and crude fiber in FDG was significantly improved (p < 0.05) compared to DG. After fermentation, the dry matter digestibility of DG increased from 37.82% to 43.96%, and protein digestibility rose from 55.61% to 63.14%. Additionally, the digestibility of crude fiber in FDG increased by 64.09% compared to the pre-fermentation period.

3.4. Effects of FDG on Laying Performance

The impact of addition of FDG on the average daily feed intake (ADFI) and laying rate of laying hens were investigated, as shown in Figure 2. The results indicated that the addition of different proportions of FDG had no significant effect on the ADFI of laying hens (p > 0.05). Regarding the laying rate, no significant differences were found in the 1% FDG group and the 4% FDG group compared to the control group (p > 0.05). However, the 2% FDG group exhibited a significant increase (p < 0.05) in laying rate compared to the control group, achieving the highest laying rate of up to 90%.

3.5. Effects of FDG on Egg Quality

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of diets supplemented with different ratios of FDG on the egg quality of laying hens. The parameters measured included the rate of broken egg, albumen height, Haugh unit, yolk color, eggshell thickness, and eggshell strength. Compared to the control group, the experimental groups with different FDG addition showed no significant effect (p > 0.05) in terms of the egg quality indices of albumen height, Haugh unit, yolk color, eggshell thickness, and eggshell strength (Figure 3B–F). However, for the egg broken rate (Figure 3A), there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the 2% and 4% FDG groups compared to the control group. The egg broken rate in laying hens decreased significantly (p < 0.05) as the FDG ratio in the diet increased. When FDG was added at 4%, the egg broken rate was the lowest among all groups.

4. Discussion

Currently, the utilization of DG as feed raw materials faces several technical challenges. The compositional variations among different types of DG influence the selection of strains for their suitability in secondary fermentation. Furthermore, fermentation conditions significantly affect the outcomes and trends in DG fermentation [16,34]. For example, in low-protein DG, the addition of Aspergillus oryzae, S. cerevisiae, L. casei, B. subtilis, and complex enzyme reagents increased the protein content of fermented DG from 15.55% to 20.41% [35]. In contrast, for high-fiber DDGS, Rho et al. [36] selected β-glucanase and xylanase, while Wang et al. [37] used B. coagulans to reduce the crude fiber content. Similarly, Sun et al. [38] selected four fungal strains (A. oryzae, Rhizopus oryzae, Mucor indicus, and Trichoderma reesei) to address the high mycotoxin and fiber content in WDGS (corn wet distiller’s grain with solubles). However, in most cases, the probiotic properties of these strains for animals were overlooked.
In this study, DG from the Shanxi Fen Winery was used as the experimental material, with the primary objectives of increasing protein content and reducing crude fiber. To optimize fermentation, three core probiotic strains were initially selected: L. acidophilus G1 for beneficial microbiota enrichment and crude fiber reduction [39], S. cerevisiae ANP 101 for enhanced crude fiber reduction and protein enrichment [39], and S. thermophilus EFR 046 to stimulate metabolic activity of these bacteria while concurrently augmenting protein content and creating an anaerobic environment conducive to beneficial microflora growth through oxygen consumption [40,41]. Building upon this foundation, we incorporated B. subtilis ASAG 216 to degrade mycotoxins in DG [42], thereby addressing a frequently challenge in animal feed applications [43,44]. The fermentation process was optimized by adjusting inoculum amount, temperature, time, and bacterial mixtures, resulting in higher protein and amino acid levels and lower crude fiber and mycotoxin contents, making FDG more digestible for animals [45,46,47,48,49]. Previous studies using different bacterial strains also demonstrated their impact on the nutrient composition of DG feeds. For instance, M. indicus and R. oryzae were used in wet distiller’s grains to enhance protein content, while Trichoderma harzianum TH1 was more effective in increasing crude protein in cassava-based DG, despite a longer fermentation time [45,47]. In corn DDGS, co-culturing with T. reesei and M. indicus increased total amino acids by 32%, though M. indicus increased DON levels while reduced ZEN concentration [48]. To simulate FDG digestion, the two-step pepsin–trypsin model was employed, following the methods of Liu et al. [32]. The results indicated that FDG had significantly higher digestibility of dry matter, protein, and crude fiber compared to untreated DG, validating the benefits of fermentation [50,51]. This improved digestibility highlights FDG’s potential in animal feed additives.
DDGS is one of the most extensively researched fermentation products in animal diets, with its application ratios varying based on composition across different animal diets [21,28]. Similarly, FDG, as a newer DG fermentation product, warrants evaluation for optimal inclusion levels in animal feed [29]. Studies by Roberson et al. [52] and Abd El-Hac et al. [53] recommend adding DG at lower levels in laying hen diets. Therefore, in this study, low inclusion rates of 1%, 2%, and 4% FDG were initially added in laying hens’ diets. The results showed that FDG supplementation significantly affected only the egg production and rate of broken eggs. Since egg production performance and quality are critical for the economic viability of the poultry industry, and these factors are closely linked to diet composition, careful selection of FDG levels is important. Previous studies on DDGS found that 6%, 12%, 18%, 24%, and 30% DDGS in diets replacing soybean meal yielded the highest egg production and breakage rates at 18% replaced group, while the 6% and 24% replaced groups had the lowest egg production and breakage rates [54]. Additionally, experiments with 0%, 10%, and 20% DDGS showed the highest egg production rate of 83.5% at 10% inclusion [55]. In this study, the 2% FDG group achieved the highest egg production rate (90%), demonstrating improved performance, while the 4% FDG group had the lowest egg breakage rate, indicating potential for increased economic efficiency. Although feed intake is a key indicator of diet palatability, and previous research has shown that ADFI in laying hens increases slightly as DDGS oil content decreases [56], the different FDG supplementation ratios in this study did not significantly affect ADFI. In summary, the results suggested that FDG supplementation, particularly at 2% and 4%, may improve egg production and reduce rate of broken eggs, thus enhanced the economic potential for laying hens.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the production technology of the FDG had improvements in nutrient profiles and digestibility from DGs. Both in vitro digestion and laying hen trials indicated that FDG has potential as a functional feed additive to enhance animal production. Future work will focus on incorporating FDG into feed as an alternative protein source for soybean meal, laying the groundwork for its use in practical animal production systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.J., and L.W.; methodology, S.L.; validation, S.L., T.L., and M.L.; formal analysis, R.J., and S.L.; investigation, R.J., and S.L.; data curation, R.J., S.L. and, T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J. and S.L.; writing—review and editing, R.J., G.Z. and S.H.; supervision, R.J.; funding acquisition, R.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. SQ2022YFD1300024), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32372929), and the Program for Young Scholar Talents of Wenying in Shanxi University.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Beijing Century Honbon Bio. Co. for providing the fermentation tank.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Shad, Z.M.; Venkitasamy, C.; Wen, Z. Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles: Production, Properties, and Potential Uses. Cereal Chem. 2021, 98, 999–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, K. Chemical Composition of Distillers Grains, a Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 1508–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Roth, M.; Jekle, M.; Becker, T. Opportunities for Upcycling Cereal Byproducts with Special Focus on Distiller’s Grains. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Villegas-Torres, M.F.; Ward, J.M.; Lye, G.J. The Protein Fraction from Wheat-Based Dried Distiller’s Grain with Solubles (DDGS): Extraction and Valorization. New Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Zhao, J.; Wang, D.; Li, Y. Proteins in Dried Distillers’ Grains with Solubles: A Review of Animal Feed Value and Potential Non-Food Uses. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2021, 98, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tao, X.; Lv, J.; Xu, H.; Xiong, X.; Jin, S. Research Progress on Comprehensive Utilization of Distillers’ Grains and Practices of Moutai. China Brew. 2023, 42, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, C.; Liu, Y.; Xu, L.; Xin, C.; Tan, Z.; Zhang, X.; Ma, C.; Chen, S.; Li, H. Changes of the Main Components, Physicochemical Properties of Distiller’s Grains after Extrusion Processing with Focus on Modification Mechanism. Food Chem. 2022, 390, 133187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pack, E.D.; Weiland, S.; Musser, R.; Schmale, D.G. Survey of Zearalenone and Type-B Trichothecene Mycotoxins in Swine Feed in the USA. Mycotoxin Res. 2021, 37, 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pinotti, L.; Ottoboni, M.; Giromini, C.; Dell’Orto, V.; Cheli, F. Mycotoxin Contamination in the EU Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts. Toxins 2016, 8, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Iseppi, A.; Lomolino, G.; Marangon, M.; Curioni, A. Current and Future Strategies for Wine Yeast Lees Valorization. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kalli, E.; Lappa, I.; Bouchagier, P.; Tarantilis, P.A.; Skotti, E. Novel Application and Industrial Exploitation of Winery By-Products. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, M.-S.; Hoadley, A.; Patel, J.; Lim, S.; Kozielski, K.; Li, C. Techno-Economic Analysis for Direct Processing of Wet Solid Residues Originated from Grain and Inedible Plant Wastes. Bioenerg. Res. 2023, 16, 940–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Toor, S.S.; Rosendahl, L.; Nielsen, M.P.; Glasius, M.; Rudolf, A.; Iversen, S.B. Continuous Production of Bio-Oil by Catalytic Liquefaction from Wet Distiller’s Grain with Solubles (WDGS) from Bio-Ethanol Production. Biomass Bioenerg. 2012, 36, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fan, W.; Sun, X.; Cui, G.; Li, Q.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Hu, B.; Chi, Z. A Strategy of Co-Fermentation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks as Swine Feed. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2023, 43, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Liu, Y.; Liu, S.; Huang, C.; Ge, X.; Xi, B.; Mao, J. Chinese Baijiu Distiller’s Grains Resourcing: Current Progress and Future Prospects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 176, 105900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Iram, A.; Cekmecelioglu, D.; Demirci, A. Distillers’ Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) and Its Potential as Fermentation Feedstock. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 6115–6128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abudabos, A.M.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alatiyat, R.M.; Aljumaah, M.R.; Al Jassim, R.; Stanley, D. Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Graded Levels of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles on the Performance, Blood Profile and Rumen Microbiota of Najdi Lambs. Heliyon 2021, 7, e05683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Emon, M.L.; Gunn, P.J.; Neary, M.K.; Lemenager, R.P.; Schultz, A.F.; Lake, S.L. Effects of Added Protein and Dietary Fat on Lamb Performance and Carcass Characteristics When Fed Differing Levels of Dried Distiller’s Grains with Solubles. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 103, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, J.; Wu, T.; Sun, X.; Zou, C.; Yang, Y.; Cao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wasim Iqbal, M.; Lin, B. Effect of Replacing Conventional Feeds with Tropical Agricultural By-Products on the Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility and Ruminal Microbiota of Water Buffaloes. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 1034–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Reis, C.E.R.; Rajendran, A.; Hu, B. New Technologies in Value Addition to the Thin Stillage from Corn-to-Ethanol Process. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2017, 16, 175–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Salim, H.M.; Kruk, Z.A.; Lee, B.D. Nutritive Value of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles as an Ingredient of Poultry Diets: A Review. World Poultry Sci. J. 2010, 66, 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lei, H.; Yang, C.; Chen, S.; He, Y.; Bin, D. Comparison of Nutritional Value among White, Beer and Rice Distiller’s Grains for Broilers. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 29, 4131–4136. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cordeiro, D.A.; dos Santos, F.R.; dos Santos, H.B.; Silva, M.R.S.; de Oliveira, N.F.; Minafra, C.S. Enzymatic Complex for Broilers Fed on a Diet Containing Different Levels of Distiller Dried Grains with Solubles. Food Chem. 2022, 386, 132761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kim, Y.B.; Park, J.; Lee, H.-G.; Song, J.-Y.; Kim, D.-H.; Ji, W.; Joo, S.S.; Kim, M.; Jung, J.Y.; Kim, M.; et al. Dietary Probiotic Lacticaseibacillus Paracasei NSMJ56 Modulates Gut Immunity and Microbiota in Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Attia, Y.A.; Alhotan, R.A. Distiller’s Dried Grains Supplemented with Enzyme Cocktail and Yeast Affect Egg Quality, Reproductive Performance and Blood Profile of Breeding Hens. J. Anim. Plant. Sci. 2023, 34, 260–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bland, K.; Utterback, P.; Koelkebeck, K.; Parsons, C. Evaluation of Feeding Various Sources of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles in Non-Feed-Withdrawal Molt Programs for Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 1421–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Koenig, K.M.; Chibisa, G.E.; Penner, G.B.; Beauchemin, K.A. Optimum Roughage Proportion in Barley-Based Feedlot Cattle Diets: Growth Performance, Feeding Behavior, and Carcass Traits. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, skaa299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Böttger, C.; Südekum, K.-H. Within Plant Variation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) Produced from Multiple Raw Materials in Varying Proportions: Chemical Composition and in Vitro Evaluation of Feeding Value for Ruminants. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2017, 229, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Świątkiewicz, S.; Koreleski, J. The Use of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) in Poultry Nutrition. World Poult. Sci. J. 2008, 64, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Official Methods of Analysis. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 22nd ed.; Latimer, G.W., Jr., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2023; ISBN 978-0-19-761013-8. [Google Scholar]
  31. Binder, E.M.; Tan, L.M.; Chin, L.J.; Handl, J.; Richard, J. Worldwide Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Commodities, Feeds and Feed Ingredients. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2007, 137, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, X.; Wang, P.; Liu, C.; Liang, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, D. Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and in Vitro Digestion of Beta-Cypermethrin in Laying Hens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 7647–7652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. NY/T 823-2020; Performance Terminology and Measurements for Poultry. China Standards Press: Beijing, China, 2020.
  34. Ge, Y.; Yu, X.; Zhao, X.; Liu, C.; Li, T.; Mu, S.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Song, Z.; et al. Fermentation Characteristics and Postacidification of Yogurt by Streptococcus Thermophilus CICC 6038 and Lactobacillus Delbrueckii Ssp. Bulgaricus CICC 6047 at Optimal Inoculum Ratio. J. Dairy Sci. 2024, 107, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, K.; Deng, X.; Jiang, D.; Qin, L.; Lu, M.; Jiang, W.; Yang, M.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, J.; Lu, L. Efficient Conversion of Distillers Grains as Feed Ingredient by Synergy of Probiotics and Enzymes. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1403011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rho, Y.; Wey, D.; Zhu, C.; Kiarie, E.; Moran, K.; van Heugten, E.; de Lange, C.F.M. Growth Performance, Gastrointestinal and Digestibility Responses in Growing Pigs When Fed Corn–Soybean Meal-Based Diets with Corn DDGS Treated with Fiber Degrading Enzymes with or without Liquid Fermentation1. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 5188–5197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, J.; Han, Y.; Zhao, J.; Zhou, Z.; Fan, H. Consuming Fermented Distillers’ Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) Feed Reveals a Shift in the Faecal Microbiota of Growing and Fattening Pigs Using 454 Pyrosequencing. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 900–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sun, X.; Tiffany, D.G.; Urriola, P.E.; Shurson, G.G.; Hu, B. Nutrition Upgrading of Corn-Ethanol Co-Product by Fungal Fermentation: Amino Acids Enrichment and Anti-Nutritional Factors Degradation. Food Bioprod. Process. 2021, 130, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shurson, G.C. Yeast and Yeast Derivatives in Feed Additives and Ingredients: Sources, Characteristics, Animal Responses, and Quantification Methods. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2018, 235, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sun, X.; Dou, Z.; Shurson, G.C.; Hu, B. Bioprocessing to Upcycle Agro-Industrial and Food Wastes into High-Nutritional Value Animal Feed for Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 201, 107325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tse, T.J.; Wiens, D.J.; Chicilo, F.; Purdy, S.K.; Reaney, M.J.T. Value-Added Products from Ethanol Fermentation—A Review. Fermentation 2021, 7, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jia, R.; Cao, L.; Liu, W.; Shen, Z. Detoxification of Deoxynivalenol by Bacillus Subtilis ASAG 216 and Characterization the Degradation Process. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dzuman, Z.; Stranska-Zachariasova, M.; Vaclavikova, M.; Tomaniova, M.; Veprikova, Z.; Slavikova, P.; Hajslova, J. Fate of Free and Conjugated Mycotoxins within the Production of Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 5085–5092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, J.H.; Park, G.H.; Han, G.P.; Kil, D.Y. Effect of Feeding Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles Naturally Contaminated with Deoxynivalenol on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Intestinal Permeability, and Utilization of Energy and Nutrients in Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barnharst, T.; Sun, X.; Rajendran, A.; Urriola, P.; Shurson, G.; Hu, B. Enhanced Protein and Amino Acids of Corn–Ethanol Co-Product by Mucor Indicus and Rhizopus Oryzae. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 44, 1989–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Dai, Z.; Cui, L.; Li, J.; Wang, B.; Guo, L.; Wu, Z.; Zhu, W.; Wu, G. Fermentation Techniques in Feed Production. In Animal Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 407–429. ISBN 978-0-12-817052-6. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vuong, M.-D.; Thanh, N.-T.; Son, C.-K.; Yves, W. Protein Enrichment of Cassava-Based Dried Distiller’s Grain by Solid State Fermentation Using Trichoderma Harzianum and Yarrowia Lipolytica for Feed Ingredients. Waste Biomass Valori. 2021, 12, 3875–3888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sun, X.; Urriola, P.E.; Shurson, G.; Tiffany, D.; Hu, B. Enhancing Feeding Value of Corn Distiller’s Grains with Solubles via Fungal Co-Cultured Solid-State Fermentation for Monogastric Animal Nutrition. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2023, 303, 115673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, G.; Yang, D.Q.; Cao, W.T.; Wang, X.D. Screening of Cellulose Degrading Bacteria in Distiller’s Grains and Degradation Technology of Distiller’s Grains. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2020, 36, 212–221. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zeng, Z.K.; Jang, J.C.; Shurson, G.C.; Thakral, S.; Urriola, P.E. Ammonia Fiber Expansion Increases in Vitro Digestibility and Fermentability of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles with or without Carbohydrases. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2021, 273, 114824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhao, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Qin, G.; Pan, L.; Sun, H.; Bao, N.; Hasham, M.M.; Farouk, M.H. Physicochemical Properties of Dietary Protein as Predictors for Digestibility or Releasing Percentage of Amino Acids in Monogastrics under In-Vitro Conditions. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Roberson, K.D.; Kalbfleisch, J.L.; Pan, W.; Charbeneau, R.A. Effect of Corn Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles at Various Levels on Performance of Laying Hens and Egg Yolk Color. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2005, 4, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  53. Abd El-Hac, M.E.; Alagawany, M.; Ragab Fara, M.; Dhama, K. Use of Maize Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) in Laying Hen Diets: Trends and Advances. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2015, 10, 690–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ruan, D.; Fouad, A.M.; Fan, Q.L.; Chen, W.; Xia, W.G.; Wang, S.; Cui, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, L.; Zheng, C.T. Effects of Corn Dried Distillers’ Grains with Solubles on Performance, Egg Quality, Yolk Fatty Acid Composition and Oxidative Status in Laying Ducks. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 568–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jiang, W.; Zhang, L.; Shan, A. The Effect of Vitamin E on Laying Performance and Egg Quality in Laying Hens Fed Corn Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 2956–2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Purdum, S.; Hanford, K.; Kreifels, B. Short-Term Effects of Lower Oil Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles in Laying Hen Rations. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 2592–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fermentation 11 00492 g001
Figure 1. Effects of different fermentation conditions on the protein content of distiller’s grains. The study examined the effects of four factors—(A) inoculation amount, (B) fermentation temperature, (C) fermentation time, and (D) mixed bacteria ratio—on the protein content of distiller’s grains. The data represent the mean values from five replicates. Means denoted by different superscripts (a, b, c) in the figures are significantly different (p < 0.05), indicating a substantial impact of these fermentation conditions on protein content.
Figure 1. Effects of different fermentation conditions on the protein content of distiller’s grains. The study examined the effects of four factors—(A) inoculation amount, (B) fermentation temperature, (C) fermentation time, and (D) mixed bacteria ratio—on the protein content of distiller’s grains. The data represent the mean values from five replicates. Means denoted by different superscripts (a, b, c) in the figures are significantly different (p < 0.05), indicating a substantial impact of these fermentation conditions on protein content.
Fermentation 11 00492 g001
Fermentation 11 00492 g002
Figure 2. Effects of different supplementation levels of FDG on laying performance. (A) Average daily feed intake (ADFI) and (B) laying rate of hens. Values represent the means of 6 replicates per group. Means with different superscripts (a, b) are significantly different (p < 0.05). CON = control group; 1% FDG = control diet supplemented with 1% fermented distiller’s grains; 2% FDG = control diet supplemented with 2% fermented distiller’s grains; 4% FDG = control diet supplemented with 4% fermented distiller’s grains.
Figure 2. Effects of different supplementation levels of FDG on laying performance. (A) Average daily feed intake (ADFI) and (B) laying rate of hens. Values represent the means of 6 replicates per group. Means with different superscripts (a, b) are significantly different (p < 0.05). CON = control group; 1% FDG = control diet supplemented with 1% fermented distiller’s grains; 2% FDG = control diet supplemented with 2% fermented distiller’s grains; 4% FDG = control diet supplemented with 4% fermented distiller’s grains.
Fermentation 11 00492 g002
Fermentation 11 00492 g003
Figure 3. The effects of different proportions of FDG supplementation on the egg quality of laying hens. Specifically, the figure shows (A) egg broken rate, (B) thick albumin height, (C) Haugh unit, (D) yolk color, (E) eggshell thickness, and (F) eggshell strength. Each value represents the mean of 18 eggs per group. Notably, means within each figure that have different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). The groups are defined as follows: CON = control group; 1% FDG = control diet supplemented with 1% fermented distiller’s grains; 2% FDG = control diet supplemented with 2% fermented distiller’s grains; and 4% FDG = control diet supplemented with 4% fermented distiller’s grains.
Figure 3. The effects of different proportions of FDG supplementation on the egg quality of laying hens. Specifically, the figure shows (A) egg broken rate, (B) thick albumin height, (C) Haugh unit, (D) yolk color, (E) eggshell thickness, and (F) eggshell strength. Each value represents the mean of 18 eggs per group. Notably, means within each figure that have different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). The groups are defined as follows: CON = control group; 1% FDG = control diet supplemented with 1% fermented distiller’s grains; 2% FDG = control diet supplemented with 2% fermented distiller’s grains; and 4% FDG = control diet supplemented with 4% fermented distiller’s grains.
Fermentation 11 00492 g003
Table 1. The ingredients and nutrient levels of the control diet (as-fed basis).
Table 1. The ingredients and nutrient levels of the control diet (as-fed basis).
Item (% Unless Note)Percentage (%)Nutritional ComponentContent
Ingredients Metabolic energy, MJ/kg 314.95
Corn56.80Crude protein, % 315.80
Soybean meal (44.2%)24.80Calcium, % 33.91
Peanut meal7.00Total phosphorus, % 33.25
Limestone7.74Available phosphorus, % 30.38
Soybean oil1.50Methionine, % 40.35
Dicalcium phosphate1.00Methionine + cysteine, % 40.67
Salt0.30Lysine (Lys), % 41.05
Lysine (98.5%)0.18Threonine (Thr), % 40.68
DL-methionine0.25
Vitamin premix 10.03
Choline chloride0.10
Mineral premix 20.30
Total100
1 Per kg contains: Vitamin A, 12,000 IU; Vitamin D3, 3000 IU; Vitamin E, 7.5 IU; Vitamin K, 1.5 mg; thiamine, 0.6 mg; riboflavin, 4.8 mg; niacin, 10.5 mg; pyridoxine, 1.8 mg; Folic acid, 150 μg; Vitamin B12, 9 μg. 2 Per kg contains calcium pantothenate, 30 mg; Manganese, 120 mg; Iodine, 0.70 mg; iron, 30 mg; Copper, 8 mg; zinc, 100 mg; Selenium, 0.3 mg.3 Determination value. 4 Calculate the value.
Table 2. Nutrient composition analysis of liquor distiller’s grains before and after fermentation 1.
Table 2. Nutrient composition analysis of liquor distiller’s grains before and after fermentation 1.
ItemItemDG 2FDG 2
Regular nutrients (%)Dry matter87.51 ± 0.6289.28 ± 0.53
Crude protein14.92 ± 0.49 b20.44 ± 0.76 a
Crude fiber17.64 ± 0.58 a12.91 ± 0.33 b
Crude ash12.59 ± 0.19 a7.46 ± 0.09 b
Mycotoxin contentAflatoxin (μg/kg)8.93 ± 0.313.21 ± 0.54
Zearalenone (μg/kg)314.72 ± 30.18 a171.25 ± 20.03 b
Deoxynivalenol (mg/kg)2.51 ± 0.31 a0.79 ± 0.19 b
1 Data were expressed as mean ± SE and means of 3 replications per treatment. 2 DG = distiller’s grains, FDG = fermented distiller’s grains. a, b Means in each row with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Amino acid contents in DG and FDG 1.
Table 3. Amino acid contents in DG and FDG 1.
ItemDG 2FDG 2
Threonine (%)0.34 ± 0.09 b0.54 ± 0.12 a
Serine (%)0.42 ± 0.020.47 ± 0.07
Proline (%)0.88 ± 0.111.44 ± 0.13
Glycine (%)0.64 ± 0.100.59 ± 0.07
Glutamate (%)2.57 ± 0.18 b3.79 ± 0.21 a
Cystine (%)0.93 ± 0.120.89 ± 0.09
Valine (%)0.88 ± 0.161.12 ± 0.15
Methionine (%)0.12± 0.040.13 ± 0.06
Isoleucine (%)0.51 ± 0.020.52 ± 0.01
Leucine (%)1.31 ± 0.111.39 ± 0.12
Tyrosine (%)0.27 ± 0.110.56 ± 0.14
Phenylalanine (%)0.64 ± 0.050.89 ± 0.13
Lysine (%)0.28 ± 0.09 b0.49 ± 0.12 a
Histidine (%)0.32± 0.080.41± 0.04
Arginine (%)0.51 ± 0.120.49 ± 0.01
Alanine (%)0.78 ±0.081.33 ±0.09
Tryptophan (%)0.15 ± 0.060.13 ± 0.04
Total amino acid (%)11.75 ± 0.34 b15.82 ± 0.17 a
1 Data are expressed as mean ± SE and means of 3 replications per treatment. 2 DG = distiller’s grains, FDG = fermented distiller’s grains. a, b Means in each row with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 4. In vitro digestion rate of DG and FDG 1.
Table 4. In vitro digestion rate of DG and FDG 1.
ItemDG 2FDG 2
Dry matter digestibility (%)37.82 ± 1.93 b43.96 ± 1.52 a
Protein digestibility (%)55.61 ± 0.22 b63.14 ± 0.28 a
Crude fiber digestibility (%)13.95 ± 0.57 b22.89 ± 0.54 a
1 Data are expressed as mean ± SE and means of 3 replications per treatment. 2 DG = distiller’s grains, FDG = fermented distiller’s grains. a, b Means in each row with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jia, R.; Lu, S.; Li, T.; Li, M.; Zhang, G.; Wang, L.; Huang, S. Production Technology of Fermented Distiller’s Grains and Its Effect on Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens. Fermentation 2025, 11, 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11090492

AMA Style

Jia R, Lu S, Li T, Li M, Zhang G, Wang L, Huang S. Production Technology of Fermented Distiller’s Grains and Its Effect on Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens. Fermentation. 2025; 11(9):492. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11090492

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Ru, Simeng Lu, Tao Li, Meng Li, Guohua Zhang, Lan Wang, and Shimeng Huang. 2025. "Production Technology of Fermented Distiller’s Grains and Its Effect on Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens" Fermentation 11, no. 9: 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11090492

APA Style

Jia, R., Lu, S., Li, T., Li, M., Zhang, G., Wang, L., & Huang, S. (2025). Production Technology of Fermented Distiller’s Grains and Its Effect on Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens. Fermentation, 11(9), 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11090492

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop