Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Miscanthus Grass as a Nutritional Fiber Source for Monogastric Animals

Written By

Renan Donadelli and Greg Aldrich

Submitted: 23 July 2021 Reviewed: 17 August 2021 Published: 05 September 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.99951

From the Edited Volume

Grasses and Grassland - New Perspectives

Edited by Muhammad Aamir Iqbal

Chapter metrics overview

545 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

While fiber is not an indispensable nutrient for monogastric animals, it has benefits such as promoting gastrointestinal motility and production of short chain fatty acids through fermentation. Miscanthus x giganteus is a hybrid grass used as an ornamental plant, biomass for energy production, construction material, and as a cellulose source for paper production. More recently Miscanthus grass (dried ground Miscanthus x giganteus) was evaluated for its fiber composition and as a fiber source for poultry (broiler chicks) and pets (dogs and cats). As a fiber source, this ingredient is mostly composed of insoluble fiber (78.6%) with an appreciable amount of lignin (13.0%). When added at moderate levels to broiler chick feed (3% inclusion) Miscanthus grass improved dietary energy utilization. However, when fed to dogs at a 10% inclusion Miscanthus grass decreased dry matter, organic matter, and gross energy digestibility, and increased dietary protein digestibility compared to dogs fed diets containing similar concentrations of beet pulp. Comparable results were reported for cats. In addition, when Miscanthus grass was fed to cats to aid in hairball management, it decreased the total hair weight per dry fecal weight. When considering the effects Miscanthus grass has on extruded pet foods, it behaves in a similar manner to cellulose, decreasing radial expansion, and increasing energy to compress the kibbles, likely because of changes in kibble structure. To date, Miscanthus grass has not been evaluated in human foods and supplements though it may have applications similar to those identified for pets.

Keywords

  • Miscanthus x giganteus
  • fiber nutrition
  • insoluble fiber
  • pet nutrition
  • human nutrition
  • pet food processing
  • fiber profile

1. Introduction

Fiber ingredients added to foods for humans and animals are typically co-products from the wood-pulp industry (cellulose), byproducts from cereal (e.g., bran, psyllium), legume seed (pea fiber), and vegetable (e.g., tomato pomace) processing. More deliberate fibers such as inulin, FOS, Chicory root extract and other prebiotics are also common to foods. Unintentional fibers such as those from gums and gelling agents (e.g., carrageenan, guar gum) are used in processed foods. Seldom have the grasses or forages been considered for use in foods as a fiber additive for monogastric animals. This has been the domain of grazing animals and as supplemental feed during confinement for ruminants and hind-gut fermenters (e.g., horses, rabbits), or used as bedding. However, forage grasses may be a viable alternative fiber source for monogastric animals under certain circumstances. Relative to the current options, the grasses would certainly qualify as less processed and could even be considered as a purpose grown, sustainable, low environmental impact ingredient in diets for man and animal. Miscanthus grass is one such novel grass that has been evaluated as a fiber source for broiler chickens, dogs, and cats [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Other authors have also evaluated this fiber for companion animal applications [7]. For purposes of this review, it is our goal to provide a comprehensive summary regarding the information available to date regarding the use of Miscanthus grass in monogastric animal food products with a nod to human nutrition. Additionally, an overview of existing knowledge regarding how this ingredient impacts food processing will be provided.

Advertisement

2. Materials and methods

The focus of this chapter was Miscanthus grass as a potential fiber source for monogastrics. A literature search was conducted with the aid of Google Scholar using the following search terms: Miscanthus grass, Miscanthus giganteus, dog, canine, cat, feline, chicken, poultry, pig, swine, food processing, particle size, and human. Literature published between 1950 and 2021 was selected as potential references to be used in this chapter. Other supporting literature related to the history, biology and agronomy of this crop was obtained from Google Scholar using search terms such as, but not limited to, Miscanthus giganteus, origin, cultivation, uses, production, NDF, ADF, ADL, TDF, insoluble fiber, soluble fiber, particle size, flowability. Other reference information available to the authors in the form of other texts, abstracts, and thesis were also considered.

Advertisement

3. Miscanthus x giganteus history and general characteristics

Miscanthus x giganteus is a hybrid plant created in Japan, likely by the combination of M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus [8]. Presumably it was then brought to Denmark in the mid 1930’s and spread throughout Europe and North America as a horticultural plant [8]. The hybrid is sterile; thus, its propagation is through viable rhizome plantings and spread (Figure 1A). In the past it was used as forage for animals and for thatching [11]. However, in recent years, it has been considered as a source of cellulose for fuel to produce heat and electricity [12] via ethanol production [9], as well as construction materials, and absorbents [13].

Figure 1.

Miscanthus x giganteus rhizome (A; from Adams et al. [9]), growth stage approximately 2.5 m (B); dried (C; from Adams et al. [9]); baled (D; from Adams et al. [9]), stored bales (E), and ground (F; from Pontius et al. [10]) with a particle size of 134 ± 93 μm and a 5X magnification.

M. x giganteus is a C4 plant relying on the NADP-malic enzyme pathway [14]. This pathway allows for the continuous photosynthesis even at lower temperatures (8°C) [15]. This is an important characteristic that has allowed this plant to be successfully cultivated in colder climates, such as northern Europe and North America. Moreover, this plant efficiently uses nitrogen and water [16, 17] compared to other crops. Thus, while M. x giganteus has not been adapted to produce food, it does grow well in marginal soils which are not suitable for cultivation.

Some authors report that the plant once established can remain productive for 5 to 40 years [11, 18, 19] depending on the region in which it is cultivated and cropping pressure (Figure 1B). Thus, M. x giganteus is considered a perennial crop. In this state it grows quickly and reaches 2 m in height with a close canopy cover which reduces sun light penetration, limiting weed growth, thus eliminating the need for herbicide administration (Figure 1B). Although, weed control is necessary before this stage as the plant is getting established [20]. Nutrient use by M. x giganteus is very efficient as it translocates nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to the rhizomes at the end of the growing season when the aerial portion of the plant begins to senesce (Figure 1C) [16]. This senescence starts with a killing frost during fall [21]. Predation by insects is limited [22]. As a result, this plant has been primarily utilized for biomass production; although, there may be more value for this crop than has been identified to date.

In general, fiber rich ingredients have been gaining more attention. In part because obesity in the pet and human population is a substantial issue [23, 24] and fiber is one possible solution to decrease the energy density of food. It may also increase the volume of the digesta in the gastrointestinal tract, and the fermentation of fiber in the colon to short chain fatty acids like butyrate (a preferred fuel source for the colonocyte) may aid in the prevention of cancer and the reduction in intestinal inflammation [25]. Moreover, food fiber through bulking of digesta can help alleviate constipation [26]. Despite these health benefits, fiber-added foods are usually less preferred than “regular” foods [27, 28]. Part of the changes in the flavor and texture attributes of fibers could be related to the composition of various fiber sources. For example, lignin a phenylpropanoid component of some fiber ingredients is known to have a bitter taste [29]. An alteration to texture is likely an effect of the changes that fiber cause in the product during processing that changes the mouthfeel as the food is consumed [30]. However, acceptance of dietary fiber may be changing as consumers attribute more importance to the health benefits and their palates adjust to the flavor and texture profile of these more fibrous products.

Despite the health benefits and their popularity in some human and pet foods, adding fiber ingredients brings challenges to manufacturing. For example, in extruded expanded products (like breakfast cereals and dry extruded pet foods) fiber ingredient addition decreases product expansion [31] and increases cutting force [32]. However, when considering the diversity of foods in the grocery stores, there are several examples of insoluble and soluble fibers which have been used successfully in select products [33].

Advertisement

4. Chemical and physical characterization

Before detailing the uses and effects of Miscanthus grass as a fiber source for monogastric animals, it is beneficial to gain an understanding regarding how fiber as a nutrient is characterized. While the term “fiber” is commonly used, it relates to a very diverse group of compounds that are not easy to characterize and quantify. To add to the complexity of this food group, differences in raw material composition (plant variety, age at harvest, environmental conditions, and harvest date) and the process in which the plant material was produced can influence the composition and concentration of the fiber nutrient in the final ingredient [26, 34]. Regardless of the challenges to evaluate fiber sources [35], it is important to characterize the fiber content of an ingredient to properly understand its effects on food processing and the possible health benefits it may have.

Different methods are used across industries to quantify the fiber content of ingredients and foods. Historically, the method initially developed was “crude fiber” (Thaer, 1809 and Hennenburg and Stohmann, 1860 and 1864 in [36]). In this method the sample is digested in a strong acid and then in a base with the residue remaining considered as fiber. In this procedure, all the soluble fibers are washed away; thus, underestimating the total fiber content of the sample. However, this is the method required on the pet food labels by state feed control officials as outlined by Model Bill within the Official Publication for the American Association of Feed Control Officials [37]. Other methods have been developed to measure fiber in forages [38, 39, 40] and are common for the beef, dairy, swine, and poultry industries. These procedures boil the forage in neutral or acid detergent solutions and measure the resulting residue. Like the crude fiber method, several of the soluble components of the sample are washed away and not accounted in the measure of fiber. In an attempt to recover the soluble fibers, the total dietary fiber method (TDF) [41] was developed to capture all the fibrous fractions. It was revised a few years later to include the analysis for the insoluble and soluble fractions [42]. This procedure is based on an enzymatic digestion to remove the proteins and starches from the sample. This method is commonly used by the human foods and nutrition industry, as some of its results are correlated with some health benefit. Since some fibers are not recovered by the TDF analysis, other methods have been developed to quantify the fiber content of a given sample; however, they are not standardized and variation in the procedures and results are known to occur [35]. Table 1 provides a summary of the methods and what fiber component is or not recovered by them. For the sake of this review, fiber composition will be classified by its solubility in water (soluble vs. insoluble) and fermentability (fermentable vs. non-fermentable). We have evaluated the composition of Miscanthus grass as an ingredient for pet food production and its composition is shown on Table 1. From the values reported, clearly Miscanthus grass is a source rich in insoluble fibers with some meaningful amount of lignin consistent with most forages.

MethodFraction RecoveredUnrecovered FractionIndustry userMiscanthus grass, %Wheat bran, %
Crude fiberMost of the cellulose
Some lignin
Soluble fibers, hemicellulose, most of the lignin, and some cellulosePet food and Animal feed45.27.5–10.11
Neutral detergent fiberCellulose, hemicellulose, ligninsoluble fibersAnimal feed73.823.1–26.52
Acid detergent fiberCellulose and ligninSoluble fibers, hemicelluloseAnimal feed53.76.5–8.12
Acid detergent ligninLigninSoluble fibers, cellulose, hemicelluloseAnimal feed13.02.4–2.62
Total dietary fiberInsoluble fibers and most of soluble fibersOligosaccharidesHuman foods85.533.4–63.03
Insoluble fiber*Insoluble fibersSoluble fibersHuman foods78.628.4–58.0
Soluble fiber*Most soluble fibersInsoluble fibers, oligosaccharidesHuman foods6.95.04

Table 1.

Methods commonly used to analyze fiber content of ingredients and values for Miscanthus grass and wheat bran from research referenced in this review.

As part of the total dietary fiber method.


From Food and Agriculture Organization [43].


From Hossain et al. [44].


From Curti et al. [45].


From Babu et al. [46].


On the physical side of fiber analysis, the most common analytical method used to characterize ingredients for the production of animal foods is particle size and its distribution. This is usually done with the standard method described by the American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers ([47], method S319.4) which consists of stacked sieves in a shaker tapping device. In the procedure a sample is placed on the top sieve and after 10 min on the shaker the content remaining in each subsequent sieve below is weighed and the geometric mean diameter of the particle is calculated from the sieve hole size and residual weight. This is not a characterization of the ingredient as a whole, but rather the specific batch and grinding equipment, as the grind size can be adjusted as needed (Figure 1F). For example, in the work of [1] they used a fine (108.57 ± 66.25 μm) and a coarse particle size (294.10 ± 253.22 μm) Miscanthus grass to evaluate the possible effects of particle size in broiler chicken performance and digestibility. This laboratory group has also reported use of a similar fine particle size Miscanthus grass used in a feeding study with cats. In this experiment the particle size of the Miscanthus grass was 103.46 ± 76.39 μm [5] and had positive effects. Pontius et al. [10] reported the exploration of Miscanthus grass as a potential premix carrier. In this work the average particle size was 134 ± 93 μm. They also evaluated flowability and angle of repose (a measure of resistance to flow) of powdered ingredients considered in a manufacturing setting for their ability to move out of bin-bottoms and through transfer pipes [48]. The angle of repose is estimated after a certain amount of the powdered ingredient has been poured onto a level bench top. The lower the angle, the easier the material will flow. The flowability index (FlowDex) is measured by adding a known amount of the powdered ingredient into a cylindrical hopper with a fitted disk of known orifice diameter. The minimum diameter for the material to flow freely is determined after 3 successful tests. From the evaluation of [10] they were unable to determine the flowability index of Miscanthus grass since the ingredient did not flow through the biggest diameter disk (34 mm diameter). Additionally, angle of repose for MG was 47.8° which compared unfavorably to all other tested fibers. These characteristics indicate that Miscanthus grass in a simple ground form may have poor flowability. Though that might be modified with alternative processing steps as has been applied to other fiber carriers and excipients from other sources (e.g., cellulose).

Advertisement

5. Effects on the animal’s nutrition and health

As mentioned previously, fiber is not considered an essential nutrient for animals. Although its consumption can be beneficial for reducing energy intake, promoting satiety, supporting gut health, and hairball management [26, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55].

Fiber can be of particular interest for the health and wellbeing of cats as they are known to suffer from hairballs. Hairballs, also known as trichobezoars, are hair masses formed in the cat’s stomach due to the extensive period of time they groom themselves [54, 56, 57] and some anatomical [57, 58] and physiological adaptations [59]. As a result of these idiosyncrasies, cats can accumulate hair in the stomach and regurgitate it when the mass is too big to pass to the duodenum. In addition, there are reports of intestinal blockages caused by trichobezoars [60]. It is believed that the addition of fiber in the diet can decrease or eliminate this issue. For example, [61] patented (patent number US 7,425,343 B2) the use of high fiber concentrations in the diet for the purpose of improving gastric motility in an effort to pass the trichobezoars to the small intestine and(or) increase the gastrointestinal passage rate. Other fibers have been evaluated as well [5, 54, 62, 63] with variable success. Their inconsistent results may be related to different methodologies used for evaluation of animal responses and the types of fiber used. Clearly, any comparison between studies must be approached with caution and more studies are needed to determine the effects of fiber in hairball management in cats. Miscanthus grass was evaluated as a fiber source to aid in hairball management in cats [5]. In this research trial, 12 American short-hair cats were fed a control diet and a test diet in which Miscanthus grass was added at 10% in exchange of rice flour. The cats were fed the diets for 21 days (16 adaptation days plus 5 days of total fecal collection) with fresh water available throughout the duration of the trial. In addition, cats were brushed prior to the start of each feeding period of a switch-back study design to remove loose hair. It was observed that less hair clumps and total hair weight were excreted per gram of dry feces in cats fed the Miscanthus grass diet. While these results were somewhat expected, because more dry feces was evacuated by cats fed Miscanthus grass, it also provided an indication that fibers (in this case Miscanthus grass) could be used in hairball management in cats as a matter of hair dilution and (or) separation to avoid aggregation. However, it is crucial to state some of the limitations of this trial, such as the use of cats that did not have a history of hairballs and had short hair. Future studies should consider evaluation by cats that have a history of hairballs, have longer hair, and the feeding period should be longer (since regurgitation frequency of a hairball could be monthly) in order to gain a true assessment of hairball elimination.

In similar fashion, weight management, food acceptance, digestibility, fecal consistency and defecation frequency, and colonic fermentation are also affected by the type of fiber. A variety of fiber ingredients are currently used in food production or for supplements intended for both humans and their pets. In general, it is known that obesity can lead to major chronic health issues for humans and pets [53, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68]. In theory weight loss by calorie restriction or alternatively an increase in energy expenditure is a simple principle, but in practice it is much more complicated as evidenced by the growing numbers of obese individuals [24] and pets [23]. Dietary fiber ingredients can contribute to caloric restriction and increase the perception of satiety [49, 69]. Unfortunately, dietary fiber addition is also known to decrease acceptance or palatability of a food [27, 70, 71] which contributes to the relatively low success of weight loss/management programs.

Other benefits of fiber in the diet are related to the production of fermentation products in the colon that promote health through the production of post-biotics, especially the short chain fatty acid butyrate. The benefits of butyrate for human health have been extensively reviewed elsewhere [25, 72]; however, there is still the need to verify most of these benefits for pets. The rate of fermentation and the amount of each SCFA is dependent on the fiber source [51, 52, 73, 74]. Thus, if the fiber source is concentrated in soluble and fermentable fibers rather than insoluble and non-fermentable fibers, more SCFA will be produced [75, 76, 77]. Miscanthus grass has been evaluated in an in vitro fermentation model using canine feces as an inoculum [3] and its fermentation was comparable to cellulose, an insoluble and non-fermentable fiber source. As a result, Miscanthus grass may not be an effective prebiotic in companion animal diets. Finet et al. analyzed total phenols and indoles, short- and branched-chain fatty acids, and ammonia in fecal samples of cats after they were fed a diet containing 9% Miscanthus grass for 21 days. The authors reported that cats fed Miscanthus grass diet had a higher excretion of indoles compared to cats fed either beet pulp (11% inclusion) or cellulose (7% inclusion). Additionally, acetate and propionate fecal concentrations were also lower compared to cats fed the beet pulp diet; however, no changes in butyrate, branched-chain fatty acids, and ammonia were reported [7]. The addition of Miscanthus grass to feline diet at 9% increased alpha diversity compared to beet pulp supplemented diet when considering Faith’s phylogeny and Shannon entropy index [7]. This suggests that while not as substantially fermented compared to other fiber sources, there may be some soluble and fermentable substrate in Miscanthus grass that could benefit the animal if provided at a sufficient dose.

By definition fiber escapes upper gastrointestinal tract digestion and would be available for fermentation in the colon. With more fiber in the diet, dry matter, organic matter, and energy digestibility of foods would decrease [78]. This contributes to dietary energy dilution, especially for insoluble fibers. Dogs [2] and cats [5] fed diets containing 10% Miscanthus grass each had decreased dry matter, organic matter and total dietary fiber digestibility compared to animals fed diets containing a similar level of beet pulp. That [7] did not see an effect of Miscanthus grass (9% inclusion) on dry matter, organic matter, and energy digestibility of dried cat foods compared to those fed diets containing beet pulp is a bit of a mystery. When diets containing 3% Miscanthus grass were fed to broiler chicks, gross energy and apparent metabolizable energy digestibility were lower compared to chickens fed beet pulp diets [1] without changes in dry matter and organic matter digestibility reported. A summary of the digestibility studies published in which Miscanthus grass was a primary fiber source for monogastric animals can be found in Table 2.

ParameterChick1Dog2Cat3Cat4
Miscanthus grass inclusion, % as is3.0010.0010.009.00
Excreta/Feces Dry matter, %45.2538.7034.3345.93
Defecation frequency, no/day/animaln/a2.981.25n/a
Fecal score5n/a3.643.323.20
Digestibility, %
Dry matter78.8378.2076.2078.30
Organic matter79.7482.1080.5081.80
Gross energy80.5282.3081.70n/a
Crude proteinn/a87.9085.8084.60
Crude fatn/a90.7085.0091.70
Total dietary fibern/a46.1020.8019.10

Table 2.

Summary of digestibility and stool quality animal studies with Miscanthus grass as a dietary fiber source.

From Donadelli et al. [1]; values are averages of tested life stages and the two different tested Miscanthus grass particle sizes.


From Donadelli and Aldrich [2].


From Donadelli and Aldrich [5].


From Finet et al. [7]; fecal scores converted to a similar scale to the other studies.


According to Carciofi et al. [79]; 1 = liquid diarrhea, 5 = hard pellets.


n/a: not available.

While this is expected, for some animal industries (e.g., swine and poultry) the addition of fiber is considered to be a nutrient dilution which is undesirable and kept to a minimum. However, there is some indication that addition of fiber ingredients could be beneficial for poultry production and might decrease or replace the use of antibiotics as growth promoters by stimulating the growth of beneficial gut bacteria [80, 81, 82]. Further, Miscanthus grass might not qualify as a prebiotic, but its coarse physical characteristics in the feed provided to chicks may stimulate gizzard contractions which is known to stimulate digestive secretions. This may improve nutrient digestibility and limit bacterial growth in the proventriculus with hydrochloric acid release [82].

Fiber ingredients can aid fecal consistency and defecation frequency; however, their effects are source and dose dependent [26, 83, 84]. When fed to dogs and cats, the addition of dietary Miscanthus grass did not affect defecation frequency; however, fecal dry matter was higher for animals fed Miscanthus grass [2, 5] compared to pet fed beet pulp. Moreover, feces of dogs and cats fed Miscanthus grass were harder than animals fed beet pulp.

One benefit that Miscanthus grass could have in human health is the control of cholesterol levels. Lignin was shown to have hypocholesterolemic effects in mice [85]. While Miscanthus grass still needs to be evaluated in humans, this could be another use of this fiber source.

Advertisement

6. Effects on food processing and texture

In addition to health, nutrition, and palatability effects, dietary fiber inclusion brings challenges to food processing and texture. As the health food segments expanded in retail stores, so has the number of fiber-added foods and supplements. Common examples of foods that are enriched with fiber include breakfast cereals, bakery goods, pet foods and treats. The two main processes used to manufacture these products are extrusion and baking. In the case of extrusion, fibrous ingredients impact product expansion negatively. Expansion occurs at the end of the die as material is exiting the extruder barrel. At this point there is a pressure difference (inside extruder barrel vs. ambient) which causes the superheated water droplets contained within the starchy matrix to vaporize. This pushes out on the starch matrix which quickly expands to form a foam-like structure. This attribute has been extensively discussed in other publications [31, 86, 87]. During this expansion process there are three key effects fibers have on expansion in these products. First, more dietary fiber means less starch in the formula – starch is the component responsible for the formation of the continuous matrix that expands and creates the product structure. Second, fibrous ingredients may compete with starch for water and limit its [starch] hydration. Third, fibers can disrupt the continuous melt formation (in the case of insoluble fibers) or create weaker melts (when soluble fibers are present). Regardless of the type of fiber, expansion will be impaired as the bubbles formed will prematurely burst [88, 89, 90]. As confirmation of this phenomenon, the addition of Miscanthus grass (an insoluble fiber source) decreased radial expansion and increased longitudinal expansion compared to beet pulp (a more soluble fiber source). These differences in how the kibble expanded also impacted sectional expansion ratio index, which was higher for beet pulp diet compared with Miscanthus grass containing food. As the structure is altered due to differences in expansion, Miscanthus grass kibbles required more energy to compress compared to beet pulp kibbles; however, hardness was similar [4]. For the cat foods addition of Miscanthus grass had no effects on tested extrusion parameters or kibble traits [6] compared to cellulose and beet pulp. Conversely, dog foods with Miscanthus grass required less mechanical energy to process compared to beet pulp supplementation [4].

Various fiber sources have been used in human foods at different inclusion levels and for different purposes [91, 92, 93]; however, to our knowledge, Miscanthus grass has not been tested for human foods or supplements as of this date.

Advertisement

7. Other Gramineae

Gramineae, or Poaceae, is a family of plants that includes most of the cereal grains (e.g., wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, barley, millet, rye, triticale), bamboos, grasses used for pastures and lawns, and sugarcane for sugar and ethanol production. This is a very diverse family with several uses for humans and animals. Since most of the cereals and the grasses for pastures and lawns are well studied, we will not cover those uses in this chapter. While some bamboo species are used in North America and Europe as an ornamental plant, in Asia, it is a commonly used construction material [94]; however, those uses are beyond the scope of this chapter.

From a nutrition perspective, cereals are an important food source for humans and other monogastric animals. Most commonly, the grains and their various components are used to produce foods for humans and animals. The stalks of the plant are usually left in the fields or burned to produce energy. Another Gramineae largely used by humans is sugarcane. Most of it for the production of sugar and ethanol. Other than these mainstream products limited research is available describing their use in monogastric animals. Specifically, [32] evaluated the use of sugarcane fiber (a co-product of the extraction of the sugarcane juice) as a fiber source for dogs. Compared to wheat bran, sugarcane fiber addition (9% inclusion) decreased the specific mechanical energy necessary to produce the food and increased the cutting force necessary to cut the kibble. When this diet with sugarcane fiber was fed to dogs they preferred the control (no fiber added) diet [27]. As noted previously, this was expected since addition of fiber ingredients generally reduce food palatability.

Advertisement

8. Conclusions and future

As described by different authors, Miscanthus x giganteus is a perennial with great potential to be cultivated in cold climates and has good biomass yields. From this crop, Miscanthus grass is produced by simply grinding the dried canes into a powder. This fibrous food ingredient is mostly composed of insoluble fibers with appreciable amounts of lignin, has poor flowability properties, which could bring challenges to a food production facility. Miscanthus grass has been evaluated as a fiber source for dogs, cats, and chicks. There are some benefits to its use through improved chick performance and feed energy utilization. For dogs and cats, it could be used in weight control diets and in hairball management cat foods. Like other fibers, during processing it decreased the expansion of extruded pet foods which may require minor process modifications to effectively achieve product specifications. Based on these findings Miscanthus grass is one of the first forage grasses that have been evaluated as a viable form of supplemental fiber for monogastric animal diets. Whether it will serve a similar purpose in human diets remains to be evaluated, but the potential exists that it might be a viable alternative compared to other fibers currently utilized in the market. What the future holds for Miscanthus grass is uncertain; however, more research is needed to better understand the potential this crop has since its widespread use in animal and human foods could aid in improving health through diet energy dilution, hairball management, and weight management and thereby improve health and wellbeing of animals and people through a well-established and structured supply chain.

References

  1. 1. Donadelli RA, Stone DA, Aldrich CG, Beyer RS. Effect of fiber source and particle size on chick performance and nutrient utilization. Poultry Science. 2019:98:5820-5830. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez382
  2. 2. Donadelli RA, Aldrich CG. The effects on nutrient utilization and stool quality of Beagle dogs fed diets with beet pulp, cellulose, and Miscanthus grass. Journal of Animal Science. 2019:97(10):4134-4139. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz265
  3. 3. Donadelli RA, Titgemeeyer EC, Aldrich CG. Organic matter disappearance and production of short- and branched-chain fatty acids from selected fiber sources used in pet foods by a canine in vitro fermentation model. Journal of Animal Science. 2019:97(11):4532-4539. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz302
  4. 4. Donadelli RA, Dogan H, Aldrich CG. The effects of fiber source on extrusion parameter and kibble structure of dry dog foods. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2021:274:114884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114884
  5. 5. Donadelli RA, Aldrich CG. The effects of diets varying in fibre source on nutrient utilization, stool quality and hairball management in cats. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2020:104:715-724. DOI: 10.1111/jpn.13289
  6. 6. Donadelli RA, Dogan H, Aldrich CG. The effects of fiber source on extrusion processing parameters and kibble characteristics of dry cat foods. Translational Animal Science. 2020:4(4):1-8. DOI: 10.1093/tas/txaa185
  7. 7. Finet SE, Southey BR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, He F, de Godoy MRC. Miscanthus grass as a novel functional fiber source in extruded feline diets. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021:8:1-13. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.668288
  8. 8. Anderson E, Arundale R, Maughan M, Oladelnde A, Wycislo A, Volgt T. Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus x giganteus for biomass production. Biofuels. 2011:2(1):71-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4155/bfs.10.80
  9. 9. Adams JMM, Winters AL, Hodgson EM, Gallagher JA. What cell wall components are the best indicators for Miscanthus digestibility and conversion to ethanol following variable pretreatments? Biotechnology for Biofuels. 2018:11:67-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1066-3
  10. 10. Pontius B, Aldrich CG, Smith S. Evaluation of carriers for use in supplemental nutrient premixes in pet food and animal feeds. In: Proceedings of the Petfood Forum; 23-25 April 2018; Kansas City, MO: PFF, 2018. p. 14.
  11. 11. Clifton-Brown J, Chiang YC, Hodkinson TR. Miscanthus: genetic resource and breeding potential to enhance bioenergy production. In: Vermerris W, editor. Genetic improvement of bioenergy crops. Springer Science & Business Media; 2008. p. 273-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70805-8_10
  12. 12. Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown J, Scurlock JMO, Huisman W. Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy. 2000:19:209-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00032-5
  13. 13. Visser P, Pignatelli V. Utilization of Miscanthus. In: Jones MB, Walsh M, editors. Miscanthus for energy and fiber. James & James Science Publishers; 2001. p. 109-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315067162
  14. 14. Cousins AB, Badger MR, Von Caemmerer S. C4 photosynthetic isotope exchange in NAD-ME- and NADP-ME-type grasses. J. Exp. Bot. 2008:59(7):1695-1703. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern001
  15. 15. Carroll A, Somerville C. Cellulosic biofuels. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2009:60:165-182. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092125
  16. 16. Beale CV, Long SP. Seasonal dynamics of nutrient accumulation and partitioning in the perennial C4-grasses Miscanthus × giganteus and Spartina cynosuroides. Biomass Bioenergy. 1997:12(6):419-428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00016-0
  17. 17. Clifton-Brown j, Lewandowski I. Water use efficiency and biomass partitioning of three different Miscanthus genotypes with limited and unlimited water supply. Annal of Botany. 2000:86:191-200. DOI: 10.1006/anbo.2000.1183
  18. 18. Lewandowski I, Scurlock JMO, Lindvall E, Christou M. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy. 2003:25(4):335-361. DOI: 10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00030-8
  19. 19. Stewart JR, Toma Y, Fernandez FG, Nishiwaki A, Yamada T, Bollero G. The ecology and agronomy of Miscanthus sinensis, a species important to bioenergy crop development in its native range in Japan: a review. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy. 2009:1(2):126-153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01010.x
  20. 20. Buhler DD, Netzer DA, Riemenschneider DE, Hartzler RG. Weed management in short rotation poplar and herbaceous perennial crops grown for biofuel production. Biomass and Bioenergy. 1998:14(4):385-394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10075-7
  21. 21. Bullard MJ, Heath MC, Nixon PMI. Shoot growth, radiation interception and dry matter production and partitioning during the establishment phase of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’ grown at two densities in the UK. Annal of Applied Biology. 1995:126(2):365-378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1995.tb05372.x
  22. 22. Prasifka JR, Bradshaw JD, Meagher RL, Nagoshi RN, Steffey KL, Gray ME. Development and feeding of tall armyworm on Miscanthus x giganteus and switchgrass. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009:102(6):2154-2159. DOI: 10.1603/029.102.0619
  23. 23. Association of Pet Obesity Prevention. U.S. Pet obesity survey [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://petobesityprevention.org/2018
  24. 24. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
  25. 25. Hamer HM, Jonkers D, Venema K, Vanhoutvin S, Troost FJ, Brummer RJ. The role of butyrate on colonic function. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2008:27:104-119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03562.x
  26. 26. Fahey GC, Merchen NR, Corbin JE, Hamilton AK, Serbe KA, Lewis SM, Hirakawa DA. Dietary fiber for dogs: I. Effects of graded levels of dietary beet pulp on nutrient intake, digestibility, metabolizable energy and digesta mean retention time. Journal of Animal Science. 1990:68(12):4221-4228. DOI: 10.2527/1990.68124221x
  27. 27. Koppel K, Monti M, Gibson M, Alavi S, Di Donfrancesco B, Carciofi AC. The effects of fiber inclusion on pet food sensory characteristics and palatability. Animals. 2015:5:110-125. DOI: 10.3390/ani5010110
  28. 28. Sudha ML, Indumathi K, Sumanth MS, Rajarathnam S, Shashirekha, MN. Mango pulp fiber waste: characterization and utilization as a bakery product ingredient. Food Measure. 2015:9:382-388. DOI: 10.1007/s11694-015-9246-3
  29. 29. Kirjoranta S, Knaapila A, Kilpelainen P, Mikkonen KS. Sensory profile of hemicellulose-rich wood extracts in yogurt models. Cellulose. 2020:27:7607-7620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03300-9
  30. 30. Gomez M, Martinez MM. Fruit and vegetable by-products as novel ingredients to improve the nutritional quality of baked goods. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2018:58(13):2119-2135. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1305946
  31. 31. Wang S, Kowalski RJ, Kang Y, Kiszonas AM, Zhu MJ, Gajyal GM. Impacts of the particle sizes and levels of inclusions of cherry pomace on the physical and structural properties of direct expanded corn starch. Food Bioprocess and Technology. 2017:10:394-406. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-016-1824-9
  32. 32. Monti M, Gibson M, Loureiro BA, As FC, Putarov TC, Villaverde C, Alavi S, Carciofi AC. Influence of dietary fiber on macrostructure and processing traits of extruded dog food. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2016:220:93-102. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.009
  33. 33. Sharma S, Bansal S, Mangal M, Dixit AK, Gupta RK, Mangal AK. Utilization of food processing by-products as dietary, functional, and novel fiber: a review. Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition. 2016:56:1647-1661. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2013.794327
  34. 34. Cole JT, Fahey GC, Merchen NR, Patil AR, Murray SM, Hussein HS, Brent JL. Soybean hulls as a dietary fiber source for dogs. Journal of Animal Science. 1999:77(4):917-924. DOI: 10.2527/1999.774917x
  35. 35. Fahey GC, Novotny L, Layton B, Mertens DR. Critical factors in determining fiber content of feeds and foods and their ingredients. The Journal of AOAC International. 2018:101:1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0067
  36. 36. van Soest PJ. Symposium on Nutrition and Forage and Pastures: New chemical procedures for evaluating forages. Journal of Animal Science. 1964:23(3):838-845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1964.233838x
  37. 37. Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Model Regulations for Pet Food and Specialty Pet Food Under the Model Bill. In: Cook S, editor. AAFCO 2019 Official Publication. Association of American Feed Control Officials, Inc; 2019. p. 139-232.
  38. 38. van Soest PJ. Use of detergent in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1963:46:829-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/46.5.829
  39. 39. van Soest PJ, Wine RH. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1967:50:50-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/50.1.50
  40. 40. van Soesst PJ, Wine RH. Determination of lignin and cellulose in acid-detergent fiber with permanganate. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1968:51:780-785. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/51.4.780
  41. 41. Prosky L, Asp NG, Furda I, DeVries JW, Schweizer TF, Harland BF. Determination of total dietary fiber in food and food products: Collaborative study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1985:68(4):677-679.
  42. 42. Prosky L, Asp NG, Schweizer TF, DeVries JW, Furda I. Determination of insoluble, soluble, and total dietary fiber in foods and food products: interlaboratory study. Journal of the Association of Analytical Chemists. 1988:71(5):1017-1023.
  43. 43. Food and Agriculture Organization. Table 45b Proximate composition of commonly used feed ingredients: Energy [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/w6928e/w6928e1l.htm
  44. 44. Hossain K, Ulven C, Glover K, Ghavami F, Simsek S, Alamri MS, Kumas A, Mergoum M. Interdependence of cultivar and environment on fiber composition in wheat bran. Aust J Crop Sci. 2013: 7(4):525-531.
  45. 45. Curti E, Carini E, Bonacini G, Tribuzio G, Vittadini E. Effect of the addition of bran fractions on bread properties. Journal of Cereal Science. 2013:57:325-332. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2012.12.003
  46. 46. Babu CR, Ketanapalli H, Beebi SK, Kolluru VC. Wheat bran – composition and nutritional quality: a review. Advances in Biotechnology & Microbiology. 2018:9(1):21-27. DOI: 10.19080/AIBM.2018.09.555754
  47. 47. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). Method of determining and expressing fineness of feed materials by sieving (S319.4). 2008.
  48. 48. Taylor MK, Ginsburg J, Hickey AJ, Gheyas F. Composite method to quantify powder flow as a screening method in early tablet or capsule formulation development. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2000:1(3):1-11. DOI: 10.1208/pt010318
  49. 49. Pappas TN, Melendez RL, Debas HT. Gastric distention is a physiologic satiety signal in the dog. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 1989:24(10):1489-1493. DOI: 10.1007/bf01537098
  50. 50. Fahey GC, Merchen NR, Corbin JE, Hamilton AK, Serbe KA, Hirakawa DA. Dietary fiber for dogs II: Iso-total dietary fiber (TDF) addition of divergent fiber sources to dog diets and their effects on nutrient intake, digestibility, metabolizable energy and digesta mean retention time. Journal of Animal Science. 1990:68:4229-4235. DOI: 10.2527/1990.68124229x
  51. 51. Sunvold GD, Fahey GC, Merchen NR, Reinhart GA. In vitro fermentation of selected fibrous substrates by dog and cat fecal inoculum: influence of diet composition on substrate organic matter disappearance and short-chain fatty acid production. Journal of Animal Science. 1995:73:1110-1122. DOI: 10.2527/1995.7341110x
  52. 52. Sunvold GD, Hussein HS, Fahey GC, Merchen NR, Reinhart GA. In vitro fermentation of cellulose, beet pulp, citrus pulp, and citrus pectin using fecal inoculum from cats, dogs, horses, humans, and pigs and ruminal fluid from cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 1995:73:3639-3648. DOI: 10.2527/1995.73123639x
  53. 53. Otles S, Ozgoz S. Health effects of dietary fiber. Acta Scentiarum Polonorum, Technol. Aliment. 2014:13(2):191-202.
  54. 54. Loureiro BA, Monti M, Pedreira RS, Vitta A, Pacheco PDG, Putarov TC, Carciofi AC. Beet pulp intake and hairball fecal excretion in mixed-breed short haired cats. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2017:101(Supplement 1):31-36. DOI: 10.1111/jpn.12745
  55. 55. Carlson JL, Erickson JM, Lloyd BB, Slavin JL. Health effects and source of prebiotic dietary fiber. Current Developments in Nutrition. 2018:2(3):nzy005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzy005
  56. 56. Panaman R. Behavior and ecology of free-ranging farm cats (Felis catus L). Z Tierpsychol. 1981:56:59-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1981.tb01284.x
  57. 57. Cannon M. Hair Balls in Cats. A normal nuisance or a sign that something is wrong? Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. 2013:15:21-29. DOI: 10.1177/1098612X12470342
  58. 58. Weber M, Sams L, Feugier A, Michel S, Biourge V. Influence of the dietary fiber levels on fecal hair excretion after 14 days in short and long-haired domestic cats. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2015:1:30-37. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.6
  59. 59. De Vos WC. Migrating spike complex in the small intestine of the cat intestine. Am J Physiol. 1993:265: G619-G627. DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.1993.265.4.G619
  60. 60. Barrs VR, Beatty JA, Tisdall PLC, Hunt GB, Gunew M, Nicoll RG, Malik R. Intestinal obstruction by trichobezoars in five cats. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. 1999:1:199-207. DOI: 10.1053/jfms.1999.0042
  61. 61. Davenport GM, Sunvold GD, Reinhart GA, Hayek MG. Process and composition for controlling fecal hair excretion and trichobezoar formation. Patent number US 7,425,343 B2. 2008.
  62. 62. Dann JR, Adler MA, Duffy KL, Giffard CJ. A potential nutritional prophylactic for the reduction of feline hairball symptoms. The Journal of Nutrition. 2004:134:2124S-2125S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/134.8.2124S
  63. 63. Beynen AC, Middelkoop J, Saris DHJ. Clinical signs of hairballs in cats fed a diet enriched with cellulose. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2001:6(2):69-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2011.69.72
  64. 64. Kealy RD, Lawler DF, Ballam JM, Mantz SL, Nierv DN, Greeley EH, Lust G, Segre M, Smith GK, Stowe HD. Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2002:220(9):1315-1320. DOI: 10.2460/javma.2002.220.1315
  65. 65. German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. Journal of Nutrition. 2006:136 (7 Suppl):1940S-1946S. DOI: 10.1093/jn/136.7.1940S
  66. 66. Laflamme DP. Understanding and managing obesity in dogs and cats. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 2006:36(6):1283-1295. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2006.08.005
  67. 67. German AJ, Hervera M, Hunter L, Holden SL, Morris PJ, Biourge V, Trayhurn P. Improvement in insulin resistance and reduction in plasma inflammatory adipokines after weight loss in obese dogs. Domestic Animal Endocrinology. 2009:37:214-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2009.07.001
  68. 68. Thompson SV, Hannon BA, An R, Holscher HS. Effects of isolated soluble fiber supplementation on body weight, glycemia, and insulinemia in adults with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2017:106:1514-1528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.163246
  69. 69. Fekete S, Hullar I, Andrasofszky E, Rigo Z, Berkenyi T. Reduction of the energy density of cat foods by increasing their fiber content with a view to nutrients’ digestibility. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2001:85:200-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0396.2001.00332.x
  70. 70. Sreenath HK, Sudarshanakrishna KR, Prasad NN, Santhanam K. Characteristics of some fiber incorporated cake preparations and their dietary fiber content. Starch. 1996:48(2):72-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/star.19960480208
  71. 71. Sharif MK, Butt MS, Anjum FM, Nawaz H. Preparation of fiber and mineral enriched defatted rice bran supplemented cookies. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2009:8(5):517-577. DOI: 10.3923/pjn.2009.571.577
  72. 72. Voet D, Voet JG, Pratt CW. Fundamentals of biochemistry – Life at a molecular level. 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2016. 1206 p.
  73. 73. Biagi G, Cipollini I, Zaghini G. In vitro fermentation of different sources of soluble fiber by dog fecal inoculum. Veterinary Research Communication. 2008:32(Supplement 1):S335-S337. DOI: 10.1007/s11259-008-9142-y
  74. 74. Guevara MA, Bauer LL, Abbas CA, Berry KE, Holzgaefe DP, Cecava MJ, Fahey GC. Chemical composition, in vitro fermentation characteristics, and in vivo digestibility responses, by dogs to selected corn fibers. Journal of Agricultura and Food Chemistry. 2008:56:1619-1626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf073073b
  75. 75. Casterline JL, Oles CJ, Ku Y. 1997. In vitro fermentation of various food fiber fractions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997:45:2463-2467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf960846f
  76. 76. Bosch G, Pellikaan WF, Rutten PGP, van der Poel AFB, Verstegen MWA, Hendriks WH. Comparative in vitro fermentation activity in the canine distal gastrointestinal tract and fermentation kinetics of fiber sources. Journal of Animal Science. 2008:86:2979-2989. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2007-0819
  77. 77. Cutrignelli MI, Bovera F, Tudisco R, D’Urso S, Marono S, Piccolo G, Calabro S. In vitro fermentation characteristics of different carbohydrate sources in two dog breeds (German shepherd and Neapolitan mastiff). Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2009:93:305-312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2009.00931.x
  78. 78. Kienzle E, Opitz B, Earle KE, Smith PM, Maskell IE. The influence of dietary fiber components on the apparent digestibility of organic matter in prepared dog and cat foods. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 1998:79:46-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1998.tb00628.x
  79. 79. Carciofi AC, Takakura FS, dr-Oliveira LD, Techima E, Jeremias JT, Brunetto MA, Prada F. Effects of six carbohydrate sources on dog diet digestibility and postprandial glucose and insulin response. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl). 2008:92:326-336. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0396.2007.00794.x.
  80. 80. Montagne L, Pluske JR, Hampson DJ. A review of interactions between dietary fiber and the intestinal mucosa, and their consequences on digestive health in young non-ruminant animals. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2003:108:95-117. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00163-9
  81. 81. Amerah AM, Ravindran V, Lentle RG. Influence of insoluble fiber and whole wheat inclusion on the performance, digestive tract development and ileal microbiota profile of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science. 2009:50(3):366-375. DOI: 10.1080/00071660902865901
  82. 82. Mateos GG, Jimenez-Moreno E, Serrano MP, Lazaro RP. Poultry response to high levels of dietary fiber source varying in physical and chemical characteristics. Applied Poultry Research. 2012:21:156-174. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3382/japr.2011-00477
  83. 83. Flickinger EA, Schreijen EMWC, Patil AR, Hussein HS, Grieshop CM, Merchen NR, Fahey GC. Nutrient digestibilities, microbial populations, and protein catabolites as affected by fructan supplementation of dog diets. Journal of Animal Science. 2003:81:2008-2018. DOI: 10.2527/2003.8182008x
  84. 84. McRae MP. Effectiveness of fiber supplementation for constipation, weight loss, and supporting gastrointestinal function: a narrative review of meta-analysis. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2020:19(1):58-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2019.10.008
  85. 85. Raza GS, Maukonen J, Makinen M, Nieme P, Niiranen L, Hibberd AA, Poutanen K, Buchert J, Herzig KH. Hypocholesterolemic effect of the lignin-rich insoluble residue of brewer’s spent grain in mice fed a high fat diet. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2018:67:1104-1114. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05770
  86. 86. Lue S, Hsieh F, Huff HE. Extrusion cooking of corn meal and sugar beet fiber: effects on expansion properties, starch gelatinization, and dietary fiber content. Ceral Chemistry, 1991:68(3):227-234
  87. 87. Mendonça S, Grossmann MVE, Verha R. Corn bran as a fiber source in expanded snacks. Food Science and Technology. 2000:33(1):2-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/fstl.1999.0601
  88. 88. Kokini JL, Chang CN, Lai LS. The role of rheological properties in extrudate expansion. In: Kokini JL, Ho CT, Karwe MW, editors. Food extrusion and technology. Marcel Dekker Inc. 1992. p. 631-653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07373939308916831
  89. 89. Rockey GJ, Plattner B, de Souza EM. Feed extrusion process description. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2010:39:510-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010001300055
  90. 90. Moraru CI, Kokini JL. Nucleation and expansion during extrusion and microwave heating of cereal foods. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2003:2:147-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00020.x
  91. 91. Massodi FA, Sharma B, Chauhan GS. Use of apple pomace as a source of dietary fiber in cakes. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2002:57:121-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015264032164
  92. 92. Cho SS, Samuel P. Fiber Ingredients Food Applications and Health Benefits. CRC Press; 2009. 516 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420043853
  93. 93. Rosell CM, Santos E. Impact of fibers on physical characteristics of fresh and staled bake off bread. Journal of Food Engineering. 2010:98:273-281. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.01.008
  94. 94. Sharma B, Gatto A, Bock M, Ramage M. Engineered bamboo for structural applications. Construction and Building Materials. 2015:81:66-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.01.077.

Written By

Renan Donadelli and Greg Aldrich

Submitted: 23 July 2021 Reviewed: 17 August 2021 Published: 05 September 2021