Fermentation Kinetics of Isolate Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic BR 12 and BR 17 were Isolated from Broiler Chicken Meat

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the Lineweaver-Burk equation, maximum speed (μmax) and maximum specific / per hour growth rate Ks (constant saturation) of probiotic lactic acid isolates BR 12 and BR 17 with limited sucrose. The material in this study was probiotic isolates of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) BR 12 and BR 17 which were isolated from broiler chicken meat, determined media, and sucrose. The method used was growed probiotic LAB isolates in the media determined with a sukora concentration that wasdifferent from 0-1%. The results showed that the Lineweaver-Burk equation of the LAB probiotic BR 12 was y = 3.503x + 10.10. the maximum speed (μmax) LAB probiotic BR 12 was0.0075 hour-1 and the constant Michaelis-Menten (KS) was 0.264g / 100 ml. Lineweaver-Burk equation of LAB probiotic BR 17 was y = 2.809x + 11.40. The maximum speed (μmaks) of LAB probiotics BR 17 was 0.088 / hour and the Michaelis-Menten constant (Km) = 0.2464 g / 100ml. The conclusion of this study was that the Lineweaver-Burk equation BR 12 was different from BR 17. The value of μmax and Ks BR 17 was lower than BR 12.

Molecular Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Broiler Chicken Meat

“…BR 17 isolate was obtained from the isolation of lactic acid bacteria from broiler chicken meat (Mudawaroch et al, 2019) (Mudawaroch et al, 2020).…”

“…BR 17 isolate is more efficient in using sucrose when compared to BR 12. BR 17 isolate requires 0.246 g of sucrose in every 100 ml of medium to produce an optimal bacterial growth rate, while BR 12 is 0.34 g/100ml (Mudawaroch et al, 2019) Lactobacillus fermentum can be used as an starter in meat fermentation (Ruiz-Moyano et al, 2011) Traditionally, bacteria were commonly identified through morphological characteristics, metabolites and other phenotypes, and this method was considered inefficient and no longer accurate because it relied on phenotypic expression. There are many differences in results between morphological identification and molecular identification (Ahmadi et al, 2015).…”