Influence of Particle Size Distribution before and After Grinding on Quality of Pelleting (Oat and Barley) in Chitwan

Author(s)

Sagar Paudel , Kiran Pokhrel , Suman Karki , Yagya Raj Pandey , Shiva Hari Ghimire , Devi Adhikari , Bodh Raj Baral , Gita Pandey , Chet Raj Pathak , Kapur Bhusal , Pratik Hamal ,

Download Full PDF Pages: 83-91 | Views: 416 | Downloads: 150 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4625395

Volume 4 - December 2020 (12)

Abstract

This experiments was carried out at National Cattle Research Program Rampur chitwan command area feed industry.  In this study there were four types feed samples were used to making of pellet feed test quality of the pellet durability, hardness, and moisture content of the oat and barley based feed. Results showed that pellet durability test in Feed 1 shows the better Pellet Durability Index (PDI) 79% with the hammer mill screen size 3 mm compare to other Feed 2, Feed 3 and Feed 4 with 61.83%, 44.16% and 53.5% in screen size 6, 3 and 6mm respectively. This may indicate that Barley beta-glucan increase solubility and thus increase viscosity after pelleting compare to oat based feed. So it would be better for the use of barley based feed in screen size of 3mm.  The pellet hardness test results is better in the Feed 1 with 50% of barley and 30 % of oat because the binding capacity of barley is more to compare with oat.  Similarly, the Feed sample 4 also showed good hardness as it contained 20% barley, 30 % whole Barley but with only 30% oat. From the experimental results and data, it can be concluded that different screen sizes of Hammer mill affect the Particle size distribution of oat and barley in the pellet quality.

Keywords

Pellet, Grinding, Durability, Feed conversion ratio

References

    1. Amerah, A.M, V. Ravindran, R.G. Lentle and D.G. Thomas, 2007. Feed particle size: Implications on the digestion and performance of poultry World Poult. Sci, J., 63: 439-455
    2. Amerah A.M, V. Ravindran, R. G. Lentle, and D. G. Thomas, 2008. Influence of Feed Particle Size on the Performance, Energy Utilization, Digestive Tract Development, and Digesta Parameters of Broiler Starters Fed Wheat- and Corn-Based Diets.Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, New Zealand.
    3. Angulo E, J. Brufau, E. Esteve-Garcia, 1996. Effect  of  a sepiolite  product  on  pellet  durability  in pig  diets  differing  in particle  size  and  in broiler starter  and  finisher  diets.Animal  Feed  Science  Technology. 63,pp 25-34 .
    4. Behnke, K.C., 1994, Factor affecting pellet quality, University of Mary land, College Park, USA
    5. Falk, D. 1985. Feed Manufacturing Technology III. Ed. R.R. McEllhiney. American Feed Industry Assn. Arlington, VA
    6. Hasting, W. H., Washington, M. V. & Higgs, D. 1980. Feed Milling Processes. In Aquaculture development and coordination programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
    7. Hussar, N. and A.R. Robblee. 1962. Poultry Sci. 41:1489
    8. Kleyn,N.D.,2004. The effect of particle size on poultry performance. http://www.spesfeed.co.za SPESFEED (Pty) Ltd
    9. Nir, I., Hillel, R., Ptichi, I. and Shefet, G., 1995. Effect of particle size on performance. Grinding pelleting interactions, Poult. Sci. 74, pp. 771–783
    10. Nir, I., 1996. The effect of food particle size and hardness on performance: Nutritionalbehavioral and metabolic aspects. In: Proceeding of the XX World’s Poultry Conference, Vol. II, New Delhi, India, Pp 173-183 http://ohioline.osu.edu/b869_73.html
    11. Reimer, L. 1992. Proc. Northern Crops Institute Feed Mill Management and Feed Manufacturing Technol. Short Course. p.7. California Pellet Mill Co. Crawfordsville, IN
    12. Scheideler, S.E. 1991. Proc. of the Carolina Poultry Nutrition Conf., Carolina Feed Industry Assn., Sanford, NC
    13. Schoeff, R.W. 1994. History of the Formula Feed Industry. In: R.R. McEllhiney, Ed. Feed Manufacturing Technology IV. American Feed Industry Association. Arlington, Virginia: 7.
    14. Svihus B, K.H. Kløvstad, V. Pereza, O. Zimonja, S. Sahlstrom, R.B. Schullerc, W.K. Jeksrudd, and E. Prestløkkene, 2004. Physical and nutritional effects of pelleting of broiler chicken diets made from wheat ground to different coarsenesses by the use of roller mill and hammer mill.Animal Feed Science and Technology.117, pp 281–293.
    15. Thomas M., van Zuilichem D.J, van der Poe A.F.B.; (1997). Physical quality of pelleted animal feed. 2. Contribution of processes and its conditions: Animal Feed Science Technology 64 (1997) 173-192
    16. Thomas M., van Zuilichem D.J, van der Poe A.F.B.; (1998). Physical quality of pelleted animal feed. 3. Contribution of feedstuff components Animal Feed Science Technology 70 (1998) 59-78
    17. www.poultrypro.com. Feed Manufacturing Effects On Poultry Feed Quality And Nutrition.http://www.poultrypro.com/poultry-articles/feed-nutrition-and-water/feed-manufacturing-effects-on-poultry-feed-quality-and-nutrition/.
    18. Zijlstra, R. T.2005. The Importance of Grinding and Quality Control of Particle Size. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Alberta.
    19. Zimonja O.,  Hetland H.,  Lazarevic N., Edvardsen D.H., and Svihus B (2008). Effects of fibre content in pelleted wheat and oat diets on technical pellet quality and nutritional value for broiler chickens: Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88: 613-622.
 

Cite this Article: