ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2025
Macroscopic Physical Properties and Nutrient Content in the Fermentation of Pangasius Waste by Single Cultures and Microbial Consortiums and Their Potential for Feed.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fish waste processing through biological technology using fermentation microbes is an important concern in handling fishery waste, because fermentation can decompose organic waste materials into useful products and reduce pollutant levels. The purpose of the study was to select three types of microbes based on macroscopic properties and nutrient content of fermented pangasius waste (FPW). In the first stage, the fermentation of pangasius waste with eight species of microbes (three of bacteria, three of fungi, and two of yeast) is cultured in a single fermentation solid-state medium. Each type of microbe that produces the highest number of colonies and nutrient content of FPW products in a single culture is then selected and used for consortium culture. The study used the nested, completely randomized design method, and the data were analyzed with ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test. The results of single cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa), Rhizopus microsporus (Rm), and Yarrowia lipolytica (Yl) produced the best FPW products at 4 days of fermentation. The results of a consortium P. aeruginosa, R. microsporus, and Y. lipolytica (Pa + Rm + Yl) at a dose of 15% and fermentation for 4 days produced the best macroscopic physical properties, and its effect on nutrient content, obtained at a dose of 15% and fermentation for 4 days (protein 52.02%, fat 29.24%, and crude fiber 2.19%). The conclusion was that the consortium of three types of microbes (Pa + Rm + Yl) was more effective in treating FPW. FPW products are recommended as feed ingredients as a source of protein for poultry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.