Next Article in Journal
The Use of Spectral Indices to Recognize Waterlogged Agricultural Land in South Moravia, Czech Republic
Next Article in Special Issue
Geographical Indications and Risks of Unsustainability Linked to “Disaffection Effects” in the Dairy Sector
Previous Article in Journal
Intercropped Plants Provide a Reservoir of Predatory Mites in Coffee Crop
Previous Article in Special Issue
EU Dairy after the Quota Abolition: Inelastic Asymmetric Price Responsiveness and Adverse Milk Supply during Crisis Time
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/agriculture13020286
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Potential of Fruits and Vegetable By-Products as an Alternative Feed Source for Sustainable Ruminant Nutrition and Production: A Review

by
Hassan Jalal
1,
Melania Giammarco
1,*,
Lydia Lanzoni
1,*,
Muhammad Zeeshan Akram
2,
Ludovica M. E. Mammi
3,
Giorgio Vignola
1,
Matteo Chincarini
1,
Andrea Formigoni
3 and
Isa Fusaro
1
1
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, 64100 Teramo, Italy
2
Nutrition and Animal-Microbiota Ecosystems, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
3
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, 40064 Bologna, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(2), 286; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020286
Submission received: 13 December 2022 / Revised: 10 January 2023 / Accepted: 19 January 2023 / Published: 25 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agriculture Policy and Tools for Global Dairy Sector in the Future)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The agro-food industry produces tons of waste at different stages in the food production process, creating a massive ecological crisis. If implemented, the use of fruit and vegetable by-products (FVBPs) in animal nutrition has the potential to lessen the environmental footprint of the food production chain, lower animal feeding costs, and improve the quality and sustainability of animal products. Recent research on the inclusion of FVBPs, naturally enriched with polyphenols, in the diets of small and large ruminants has shown some promising outcomes, which we discuss in this review. The effects of FVBPs on digestion, rumen fermentation, methane emissions, rumen liquor fatty acid profile, and milk production are examined. Due to the chemical composition and the presence of certain bioactive compounds, FVBPs are capable of influencing the ruminal and intestinal ecosystem through improved kinetics of fermentation. Several in vivo studies have demonstrated that the dietary inclusion of FVBPs resulted in improved milk production and composition without any negative effect on animal performance. Using FVBPs as an alternative to conventional feedstuffs may promote sustainable animal production and nutrition. However, it must be stressed that the efficacy of these feed supplements is conditional on the source, kind, and quantity employed.

1. Introduction

Agro-industrial by-products consist of waste from agricultural crops or vegetable processing industries, and their disposal poses an environmental issue because they are potential pollutants [1]. The production of agro-industrial by-products in the European Union (EU) is projected to be 16 million tons, with Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, and Spain being the main producers, creating 3 million tons, 2.6 million tons, 1.9 million tons, 1.8 million tons, and 1.6 million tons, respectively [2]. The increasing volume of agro-industrial by-products worldwide poses a significant environmental threat [2]. Landfilling, burning, and dumping are the most common methods used to dispose of these agro-industrial by-products, all of which result in environmental pollution [3]. The greenhouse gases produced from landfills, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), are released directly into the environment, contributing to global warming [4]. CH4 production is a greater problem than CO2 production since CH4 traps 21 times more heat than CO2 [5].
Recent reports have shown an increasing trend in the global demand for animal products [6]. Furthermore, the human population is estimated to surpass 10 billion by 2050, and food demand will be increased by 59–98% [7]. Correspondingly, livestock population will need to expand by 70% [8]. Since feed is a key factor in determining livestock production, efficient livestock feeding is crucial to achieving the desired production level [9]. However, global livestock production is constrained by an inadequate supply of feed owing to urbanization and industrialization [10,11]. An increased hike in the human population raises food-feed competition, posing yet another challenge for the animal production sector. This requires feeding animals with humaninedible ingredients and producing animal feed on arable land instead of human food [12]. The increasing costs of green fodders and grains are also impacting livestock production. In fact, forages are the base of ruminants’ diet (such as corn silage, alfalfa, or grass hay), and concentrates provide additional protein and energy [13]. All these factors have driven animal producers to formulate livestock feed on cost-effective human-inedible ingredients that do not compete with human nutrition. Albeit, finding alternative feed ingredients for animal nutrition to support sustainable production has become challenging [14]. The use of fruit and vegetable by-products (FVBPs) from the winery, juice, and jam industries as a non-conventional feed source for ruminants could be a considerable option. FVBPs, which include pulps, skins, pomace, roots, and tubers, represent the most common waste products, accounting for 40–50% of all discarded material [15]. Grape and olive pomaces are derived from the wine and oil production industry, while apple pomace, citrus pulp and peel, and pomegranate pulp are derived from the juice, jelly, and jam industries [16]. Among vegetables, tomato pomace is a by-product of tomato paste and ketchup production [17]. Alongside serving as a feed source, FVBPs also contain a significant amount of bioactive substances, particularly polyphenols such as flavonoids and tannins [18]. These bioactive compounds modulate ruminal microbiota, fermentation, and digestion and help in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions [15]. However, global livestock sector contributes 14% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and a large portion approximately 81% of the enteric CH4 emissions come from ruminants [19,20]. Additionally, CH4 accounts for 2–12% of energy loss in ruminants [21]. When added to ruminant diets, these polyphenol-rich FVBPs have been demonstrated to reduce CH4 gas by inhibiting the growth and action of methanogens such as Methanomicrobium or Methanobrevibacter, which are accountable for CH4 production [22]. Biologically active compounds, such as flavonoids derived from the by-products of the winery industry and citrus fruits, have gained attention for their ability to modulate ruminant immune systems [23], increase milk production, and have a positive effect on ruminant milk composition [24]. These resources could be used to produce environmentally sustainable ruminant nutrition and production. This strategy would provide financial and health benefits for the animal industry while also helping to alleviate the environmental problems associated with waste disposal [25]. The inclusion of these by-products in ruminant diets could lessen the environmental impact of their disposal [26] and promote the growth of a circular economy by recycling the biomass derived from crop production [1].
However, their usage in ruminant feeds is constrained by an inadequate understanding of the nutritional and economic benefits of FVBPs, as well as by their seasonal availability [2]. The current review discusses the nutritional values of FVBPs and investigates possibilities of using FVBPs as potential feed to improve the nutrition and productivity of ruminant animals sustainably.

2. Chemical Composition of FVBPs Used in Ruminant Feeding

The chemical compositions of FVBPs, including dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), ether extract (EE), and ash are indicated in Table 1. Moreover, FVBPs are usually rich in highly fermentable sugars [27]. Abarghuei et al. [28] observed grape pomace to have variable physical and chemical characteristics, with a low CP concentration (94 g/kg of DM), whereas Guerra-Rivas et al. [29] reported a high CP content (138 g/kg of DM). Correddu et al. [30] observed a high quantity of lipids in grape pomace (109 g/kg of DM).
Citrus by-products are a good source of energy for dairy ruminants, pigs, and other domesticated animals because they have low protein levels (50 g/kg of DM) and NDF levels (194–308 g/kg of DM) [1,31,32]
Pomegranate seeds and peels have demonstrated a greater NDF content (680 g/kg of DM) and a moderate CP level (154 g/kg of DM) [33]. However, García-Rodríguez et al. [1] reported the lipid contents of apple pomace as twice as reported in previous studies(60 g/kg of DM vs 18 and 37 g/kg of DM) 34,35]. The researcher believed that seeds in the residual debris increased lipid content [15]. Some studies have found that the chemical properties of vegetable pomace, such as tomato from ketchup and sauce manufacture, differ from those of fruit by-products [36,37]. Tomato pomace has greater CP (217 g/kg of DM) and NDF (554 g/kg of DM) levels than fruit by-products [38]. There has been a recent uptick in research on the feasibility of using agro-industrial by-products as livestock feed. However, their chemical compositions vary greatly due to various factors, including their horticultural or geological origin, cultivating and processing methods, and climatic conditions [39]. Several potential dietary components for ruminants exist to serve as alternates to conventional feeds. A high-energy by-product may replace grains in the diet, whereas a high-fiber by-product can take the place of roughage [40]. In addition to conventional protein sources, such as soybean meal, various by-products can serve as alternatives, such as tomato pomace [41,42,43]. There is a need to expand our knowledge about the exact chemical properties and nutritional value of co-products from horticulture, agriculture, and fruit farming to make proper recommendations for their inclusion in the diets of ruminants.
Table
Table 1. Chemical compositions of FVBPs (g/kg of DM).
Table 1. Chemical compositions of FVBPs (g/kg of DM).
By-ProductsDMOMCPEENDFADFAshReferences
Grape pomace439918958547444082[44]
950-1197337631789[45]
5259409452568476-[28]
-81113832243193-[29]
Grape marc91093811389558465-[46]
934-1116952738987[36]
Grape seed-96011652682584-[1]
974-93109539-27[30]
Citrus pulp (orange)9048317749194128168[32]
-94011025308223-[1]
937-502623016290[31]
Citrus pulp (lemon)-9577677247171-[1]
872-663220916451[47]
905-872717514581[48]
Citrus (clementine)-972732013996-[1]
Tomato pomace-95219110055246248[37]
851966194-500340-[49]
94195521793554422-[38]
926-1576261650744[36]
Pomegranate pulp912-692631422836[50]
97178 413 [51]
Pomegranate seed951-154668049024[33]
880 12612149639020[52]
Pomegranate peel8759433518--56[53]
961-36620815154[33]
Apple pomace9739827718306244-[34]
9219816737-442354[35]
-9845160672460-[1]
DM: dry matter; OM: organic matter; CP: crude protein; EE: ether extract; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber.

3. Bioactive Compounds of FVBPs Used in Ruminant Feeding

Polyphenols are plant secondary metabolites that protect plants from infections, insects, grazing animals, and the harmful effects of solar radiation [54]. These compounds are characterized by aromatic rings with one or more hydroxyl groups. Polyphenols are further categorized based on their chemical structure into flavonoids, non-flavonoids, and tannins [2].
Flavonoids have two aromatic rings connected by three carbon atoms to form an oxygenated heterocycle. Flavonoids have gained prominence owing to a wide range of biological effects and antimicrobial properties. Flavones, flavonols, flavanones, isoflavones, and anthocyanidins are all types of flavonoids [55]. The most common examples of non-flavonoids are simple phenols (cresol, thymol, and resorcinol), phenolic acids (syringic, gallic, and vanillic acid), and stilbenes. Additionally, a wide variety of molecular weights and degrees of complexity may also be found in tannins. They are classified into two categories: hydrolyzable tannins (HT) and condensed tannins (CT). Tannins may have favorable or unfavorable effects depending on the animal’s species, physiological condition, and diet composition [56]. These bioactive compounds have no direct nutritional value and may have negative effects on animal productivity as antinutritional substances [57]. However, several studies have declared these antinutritional substances to be effective natural feed additives. Their prudent and efficient usage as feed additives has been associated with improved rumen fermentation efficiency, including better protein metabolism [58], decreased CH4 production [58], minimized nutritional stress such as bloating [30], and improved animal health and productivity [15]. The polyphenols, such as flavonoids, non-flavonoids, and tannins, in FVBPs have beneficial biological effects on the rumen ecology, such as modifying the rumen micro-biota, which affects the ciliated associated methanogen population [59] to reduce CH4 emissions and protein degradation [26]. The phenolic compositions of FVBPs are shown in Table 2.
Table
Table 2. Bioactive compounds (polyphenols) in FVBPs used in ruminant feeding.
Table 2. Bioactive compounds (polyphenols) in FVBPs used in ruminant feeding.
Fruits and VegetablesFVBPsBioactive CompoundsReferences
GrapesPomaceFlavanols, flavanols, anthocyanins, CT, catechin, epicatechin, gallic acids, and proanthocyanidin[26,36,60,61]
SeedsAnthocyanins, proanthocyanins, ferulic acids, caffeic, gallic acids, CT, and catechin[26,30,62,63]
StalkCT, flavanols, hydroxycinnamates, and flavanols[64]
Citrus fruitsPeelDiosmin, narirutin, didymin, sinesetin, gallic acid, p-coumaric, hesperidin, catechins, ferulic acid epicatechins, quercetin, and proanthocyanidin[23,65,66]
TomatoPomaceNaringenin, rutin, quercetin, and kaempferol[36,37]
PomegranateSeedAnthocyanins, HT, and flavonoids[67]
PeelFlavonoids, punicalagin, gallic acid, HT, and CT[68,69]
PulpTannins[70]
ApplePomace (peels, core, seeds, stems)Catechins, proanthocyanidins, hydroxycinnamates, flavonols, dihydrochalcones, anthocyanins, quercetin, and glycosides[26,71]

4. Effect of Feeding FVBPs on Ruminant’s Nutrition

4.1. Effects on Dry Matter Intake

DM intake (DMI) is dependent on the type of FVBPs used and on which ruminant species. Ruminants’ DMI was reduced when FVBPs, particularly citrus and grape pomace over 150 g/kg DM, were offered to them [45,72]. Owing to the asperity that proanthocyanidins impose on feed by interacting with salivary proteins, the feed becomes less palatable and has a high fiber content, contributing to a reduced DMI [73]. The dried citrus pulp may substitute up to 20% of the concentrate in dairy cattle [74], and up to 30% in ewes, without lowering DMI [32]. However, recent research has demonstrated that citrus and winery by-product inclusion levels below 150 g/kg of DM in ruminants promote DMI because of their distinctive flavor, smell, and higher palatability at these lower inclusion levels [45,75,76,77]. The literature suggests that feeding ensiled apple pomace to lactating Holstein cows at rates of up to 30% had no detrimental effects on their performance. Meanwhile, a 15% inclusion of apple pomace was shown to be the optimal level for a better feed conversion ratio [78]. On the other hand, Fang et al. [79] suggested that the apple pomace content should not exceed 44 g/kg of DM, or 5%, in the overall mixed ration treatments. Tomato waste may be fed to animals either fresh or after storage by ensiling or sun drying. The high water content of tomato pomace prevents it from ensiling on its own. Therefore, to overcome this problem, it is frequently mixed in a 70:30 ratio with wheat, rice, or corn stovers. Multiparous dairy cows (producing 26 kg of milk per day) had their concentrate mixtures supplemented with up to 32.5% dried tomato pomace with no adverse effects on their DMI [80]. Moreover, tomato pomace can be supplemented as feed in sheep’s diets, but the level should not exceed 40% [41]. Inconsistencies in results are present which suggest the need for further research to better understand the prudent exploitation and optimum inclusion level of each agro-industrial by-product in ruminants’ diets.

4.2. Effects on Rumen Digestibility

The rumen digestibility of DM, OM, CP, and NDF tends to decrease as FVBPs levels in ruminant diets increase, as shown in Table 3. One possible explanation could be the complex interactions between polyphenols in these FVBPs and polymers, such as proteins and carbohydrates, to create complexes, reducing their digestibility in ruminants’ digestive tracts [81]. A lower digestibility of FVBPs is typically associated with increased lignin and tannin contents, as well as the industrial process to which co-products are subjected [82]. FVBP phenolic groups, which include proanthocyanidins, eugenol, and limonene, interact with protein by forming hydrogen bonds at various sites. More specifically, proanthocyanidins interact with the hydrophobic sites of proteins and the aromatic ring structure of tannins to form complexes [83]. Moreover, the use of FVBPs decreases protein digestibility [28,84] because of the tannin’s capacity to bind proteins. When FVBPs supplemented with other feeds, NDF digestibility is further hampered as their tannin contents create indigestible complexes with cell wall carbohydrates inside the rumen [28]. In industrial processes, the heat required to extract juices, wine, and jam increases the quantity of nitrogen or tannin compounds in the cell wall of the by-products, hence decreasing CP digestibility [85]. In this case, polyethene glycol can help in increasing the CP digestibility of by-products [28]. However, evidence from in vivo and in vitro studies shows that essential oils and polyphenols from citrus and winery by-products protect dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids from biohydrogenation in the rumen and limit the metabolism and proliferation of ruminal bacteria, which are responsible for biohydrogenation, especially those implicated in the final step, which transform vaccenic acid into stearic acid [86,87]. Clostridium proteoclasticum inhibition without affecting Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens to a great extent permits polyunsaturated fatty acids and their biohydrogenation products, such as rumenic acids and vaccenic acids, to bypass rumen biohydrogenation and be absorbed into animal tissues [88]. In conclusion, using FVBPs in high amounts might be detrimental to DMI and nutrient digestion.
Table
Table 3. Effects of FVBPs on the nutrient digestibility of ruminants.
Table 3. Effects of FVBPs on the nutrient digestibility of ruminants.
By-ProductsInclusion g/kgAnimalsDMD g/kgOMD g/kgCPD g/kgNDFD g/kgADFD g/kgReferences
Grape pomace762lambs453510345343-[28]
20steers625665725622533[89]
Citrus pulp90cows741-759574-[90]
180cows754-765576-[90]
50calves667-698546476[91]
100calves654-696541462[91]
150calves653-691531459[91]
200calves652-690525451[91]
100lambs695716714501472[92]
200lambs691713706495470[92]
300lambs681705703488465[92]
400lambs678704692471461[92]
Tomato pomace72cows667680-397-[93]
Pomegranate peel extract10cows566-601414-[94]
20cows582-606416-[94]
40cows609-648458-[94]
Pomegranate marc80lambs732.4754705.6501.8424.9[95]
160lambs701.4723.7617.3445.2293.3[95]
Pomegranate peel10lambs671668717--[96]
20lambs664663692--[96]
40lambs653661683--[96]
Ensiled mixed apple and tomato pomace150cows665703.6662.5590-[97]
300cows668702.1662.4586-[97]
Apple pomace50cows525576638458415[98]
100cows518570595465412[98]
200cows508554537452402[98]
50wethers631580746422401[79]
100wethers625571717424399[79]
200wethers618566698437409[79]
DMD: Dry matter digestibility; OMD: organic matter digestibility; CPD: crude protein digestibility; NDFD: neutral detergent fiber digestibility; ADFD: acid detergent fiber digestibility.

4.3. Effects on Methane Production

One contributor to global warming is the CH4 gas emitted during enteric fermentation by ruminants. Enteric CH4 emissions account for around 90% of total CH4 emissions and 47% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the ruminant industry [99]. Strategic feeding of animals has the potential to minimize CH4 and N2O emissions during animal production [100]. Some of the phytochemicals in FVBPs, including tannins, saponins, and essential oils, might potentially alter microbial diversity and fermentation in the rumen, hence reducing ruminal methanogenesis [101]. Additionally, tannins and other phytochemicals containing phenolic groups may be more adept at binding with proteins, slowing their degradation by rumen microbes [102]. Likewise, the tannins’ interaction with FVBPs and ruminal bacteria or their suppression of fiber digestion may be directly or indirectly responsible for the reduction in CH4 production [103]. Reduced feed degradability as a result of interactions between FVBPs’ naturally occurring substances, such as bioactive components and ruminal microorganisms, leads to lower concentrations of hydrogen ions, which in turn leads to lower levels of CH4 production [104]. However, unfortunately, a decrease in the digestibility of OM often accompanies anti-methanogenic action [56]. Additionally, adding polyphenolic compounds from citrus by-products and grape pomace to dairy animal diets has been shown to lower CH4 emissions by preventing the growth and activity of methanogens such Methanomicrobium and Methanobrevibacter [22,105]. The use of dried distiller grains soluble with 1–20% grape seed meal in vitro lowered CH4 emission and the amount of Methanobrevibacter spp. [106]. In another study, feeding dairy cows with dried and ensiled grape pomace at a 5 kg DM/day inclusion rate in partial replacement for alfalfa hay reduced CH4 emissions by 22.6%, with positive stimulation of rumen bacteria and archaeal populations [22]. Essential oils from these by-products, such as eugenol and limonene, have been found to directly inhibit methanogenic archaea or indirectly limit CH4 emissions by directly reducing particular microbial metabolic pathways, leading to methanogenesis [107]. Additionally, essential oils may alter the structure of the archaeal community and/or the activity of the methanogenic pathway, reducing the abundance of methanogens and CH4 production [108]. Some protozoa, which live in symbiosis with archaea and may contribute up to 37% to rumen CH4 synthesis, may be suppressed by these compounds, reducing methanogenesis. CH4 production in the rumen may be cut by as much as 94% through the use of essential oils, which have been shown to have this effect [108,109]. As a result, there is an opportunity to offer high feeding value while minimizing CH4 production by supplementing feed items rich in phytochemical-nutrient complexes into ruminant diets.

4.4. Effect on Rumen Fermentation Parameters

The dietary effects of FVBPs enriched with polyphenols on ruminal fermentation parameters such as ammonia (NH3) production and volatile fatty acids (VFA) have been diversely investigated. Polyphenols have shown the ability to reduce ruminants’ born environment footprints through the mitigation of urea and CH4 emissions. In Table 4, the main effects of the inclusion of different FVBPs on the ruminal parameters are presented. Reduced rumen VFA concentration is reported because of the presence of proanthocyanidins in these by-products, as they lower microbial activity and substrate degradation in the rumen [30]. Among other effects, polyphenols lower feed degradability, which results in reduced total VFA concentration, particularly acetate contents [56], which could be associated with decreased ruminal microbial activity. It may be due to the inhibition of cellulolytic bacteria by polyphenols, particularly tannins, that their main product, acetate, is produced. In a few cases, an increase in propionate was observed, which lead to a decrease in the acetate-to-propionate ratio. A negative correlation between propionate and CH4 production exists because of hydrogen molecules required for assimilation, which is an important effect of polyphenols from an environmental point of view [2]. However, ruminal VFA production is substrate-dependent; increasing the amount of FVBPs (such as grape pomace and citrus by-products) in ruminants’ diets by up to 150 g/kg of DM enhances the overall VFA profile [23]. Previous studies have also shown a decrease in ruminal NH3 production, which is probably associated with a decrease in protein degradability [42]. It is widely established that polyphenols bind with dietary proteins and limit the degree to which they ferment in the rumen [110]. This last aspect remains paramount for a couple of reasons: first, it increases nitrogen use by animals from a nutritional viewpoint; second, it minimizes nitrogen excretion from an environmental standpoint. In addition, proanthocyanidins and essential oils from citrus by-products and grape pomace lessen the amount of NH3 and nitrogen produced in the rumen owing to reduced protein degradation [111]. Furthermore, bioactive compounds from FVBPs likely affect ruminal NH3 concentrations by lowering the number of protozoa, which are essential for the breakdown of the protein in feed [111,112]. Several studies have demonstrated that NH3 nitrogen released by microbial protein degredation can be bound by polyphenols in a balanced chemical reaction regulated by NH3 concentrtion to provide a continuous supply of sufficient NH3 for rumen microbial growth. [109].
Table
Table 4. The effects of feeding FVBPs on rumen fermentation parameters.
Table 4. The effects of feeding FVBPs on rumen fermentation parameters.
FVBPsSpeciesInclusion LevelMain FindingsReferences
Grape pomaceSheep762 g/kgReduced NH3 concentration and pH values[28]
Steer20 g/kgIncreased NH3 concentration, increased total volatile and propionate, reduced acetate-to-propionate ratio[89]
Grape seedSheep300 g/dayIncreased NH3, increased rumenic acid and vaccenic acid, reduced linoleic and linolenic acids[30]
Grape marcCows5 kg/day or 247 g/kgReduced NH3 concentration, increased acetic acid, reduced propionic acid, increased acetic-to-propionic ratio[113]
Tomato silageGoat850 g/kgReduced acetate-to-propionate ratio[114]
Tomato pomaceLambs50–150 g/kgReduced NH3–nitrogen concentration, increased acetate, propionate, butyrate, iso-butyrate and valerate concentrations, and higher total VFA concentration[115]
Ensiled mixed tomato and apple pomaceCows150–200 g/kgHigher acetic and propionic concentrations, higher acetic-to-propionic ratio and total VFA concentration, lower ruminal pH[97]
Citrus pulpEwe390 g/kgReduced rumen NH3 concentration, increased acetate-to-propionate ratio, reduced butyrate proportion[116]
Ewe300 g/kgLess in vitro NH3 production, low pH, reduced acetate-to-propionate ratio, improved total VFA yield[117]
Pomegranate peel extractCows400 ml/cow/dayDecreased NH3–nitrogen concentration, no effect on ruminal pH or the concentration of volatile fatty acids[118]
Cows200 g/kgReduced NH3 concentration and pH[119]
Apple pulpCows250–750 g/kgNo effect on NH3–nitrogen concentration in the rumen or acetate-to-propionate ratio[35]
Apple pomaceCows200 g/kgIncreased acetic acid, decreased propionic concentration, reduced NH3[79]
Cows200 g/kgReduced NH3 concentration, and increased acetic acid[98]

5. Effect of Feeding FVBPs on Milk Production and Composition

Table 5 details the effects of feeding FVBPs on the milk yield and quality of small and large ruminants. Milk production and quality were affected differently by including FVBPs in the diets of small ruminants. The grape marc supplementation at an inclusion level of 100 g/day/head in dairy sheep produced 200 g more milk per day than the control group, and their milk included 8.4 and 5.5 more grams of protein and fat per day, respectively [36]. The authors confirmed that the milk quality in terms of fatty acid profile and milk yield were not impacted when 47% of conventional ingredients in a concentrate for lactating goats was substituted with a mixture of tomato fruits and citrus pulp [120]. Additionally, Arco-Pérez et al. [114] found that supplementing lactating goats’ diets with sunflower oil (20 g/kg of DM) and replacing oat hay with silage prepared from tomato or olive oil by-products resulted in higher milk quality without lowering animal efficiency. Tomato silage was fed to dairy goats for an extended period, and the animals gained weight consensually without having any adverse effects in terms of milk production or composition [114]. Another study showed that milk production and the ratios of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids were not affected by supplementation with winery industry waste [36,121,122]. However, the total solids and fat content of milk produced by sheep fed with grape residue were found to be higher [122]. The literature provides inconsistent findings when investigating how FVBPs influence the content of milk produced by small ruminants. Contradictory results were observed when grape by-products were included as dietary supplements in dairy sheep’s diets [123]. Tomato by-products have been shown to decrease milk protein content, as reported by other authors [124]. Reducing dietary energy supply or the lower rumen degradability of the tomato by-product were both posited to have contributed to a drop in milk production [36]. There are few studies examining the effects of adding FVBPs to the diets of large ruminants on milk production or composition. Milk fat and protein levels were not affected when grape pomace was substituted for grain in dairy cow diets [125]. The milk yield and composition of jersey cows in terms of protein and fat content were not found to change when dried apple pomace was substituted for ground maize [35]. Santos et al. [90] also tested the effects of feeding citrus pulp pellets and maize grain to dairy cows, finding no detrimental impacts on milk quality or production. In addition, Abdel Gawad et al. [24] found that substituting wheat bran with tomato pomace, citrus, and beet pulp as a concentrate in animal diets improved milk fat in the buffalo species. Tomato pomace silage was substituted for clover as a forage in the diets of lactating Egyptian buffalos, which boosted milk production and fat content through better nutrient digestion [126]. An increase in milk production was observed in cows fed a diet of mixed ensiled tomato and apple pomace, which is thought to be attributable to the increased nutrient digestibility and palatability of the feed [97]. When 2% pomegranate peel was included in dairy cows’ diets, milk production, total solids, solid non-fats, and protein levels were all significantly higher than with the control diet. However, adding 4% pomegranate peel to the feed drastically decreased milk production [53]. In contrast to this study, Jami et al. [94] found that feeding dairy cows a diet containing 4% pomegranate peel extract increased milk production. Accordingly, the increased daily milk protein output in cows given pomegranate peel extract may be due to the higher flow of microbial protein to the intestine, which benefits the cows by increasing the number of amino acids available for absorption [118].
Table
Table 5. Effects of FVBPs on milk production and composition in ruminants.
Table 5. Effects of FVBPs on milk production and composition in ruminants.
By-ProductsSpeciesInclusion Level of
by-Products		Milk YieldFatProteinLactoseUreaReferences
Grape pomaceSheep100g/day↑s↓s↓snsns[36]
Sheep5 g/100gnsnsns↓s-[121]
Sheep10 g/100gnsnsns↓s-[121]
Cows150 g/kgnsnsns↑s-[125]
Sheep10 g/kgnsnsnsns-[46]
Grape residue flourSheep20 g/kgns↑snsnsns[36]
Grape seedSheep300 g/daynsnsnsnsns[123]
Citrus pulpCows90 g/kgnsnsnsnsns[90]
Cows180 g/kgnsnsnsnsns[90]
Citrus pulp plus tomato pomaceBuffaloes100 g/kg↑sns↑sns-[24]
Tomato pomaceSheep300 g/kgnsnsns↑s-[37]
Sheep100 g/dayns↓s↓snsns[36]
Goats202 g/kgns↑snsns-[114]
Mixed tomato and apple pomaceCows150 g/kg↑snsns--[24]
Cows300 g/kgnsnsns--[24]
Pomegranate seed pulpGoats60 g/kgns↑snsns-[127]
Goats120 g/kgns↑sns↑s-[127]
Pomegranate pulpSheep648 g/kgnsnsnsnsns[50]
Pomegranate peel extractCows400 mLnsnsnsns-[118]
Cows800 mL↑snsnsns-[118]
Cows1200 mlnsnsnsns-[118]
Pomegranate peel Cows20 g/kg↑s↑s↑s↓s-[53]
Cows30 g/kgnsnsnsns-[53]
Cows40 g/kg↓snsnsns-[53]
Pomegranate pulp silageCows75 g/kgnsnsnsns-[128]
Cows150 g/kgnsnsnsns-[128]
Apple pomaceCows250nsnsns↑s-[35]
Cows500nsnsns↑s-[35]
Cows750↓nsnsns↑s-[35]
Cows4 kg/day↑s↑s↑s--[129]
ns = not significant; ↑s value = increased significant and ↓s value = decreased significant value (respectively); values were compared to the control (p < 0.05).

6. Merits and Demerits of Using FVBPs in Ruminant Feeding

FVBPs have the potential to be used as supplementary feed ingredients for ruminant production, particularly in low-to-middle-income countries [130]. This is because the increasing demand for animal products, driven by rising incomes and populations and urbanization, imposes a huge demand on feed resources [130]. Efficient utilization of locally available feed resources is key to sustainable ruminant production, including reducing waste through the use of FVBPs and expanding the feed resource base with non-human food sources. An overview of the use of FVBPs in ruminant feeding is presented in Figure 1. Using FVBPs in animal nutrition has the added benefit of providing bioactive compounds that can have positive environmental impacts, such as reducing methane and nitrogen excretion, and increasing the nutraceutical value of human food from animal sources [23]. FVBPs are rich in cellulose, minerals, vitamins, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and phytochemicals and have been linked to a variety of benefits with regard to animal health and milk production [61,131,132,133]. However, the use of by-products is severely restricted in the case of the production of long-ripening cheeses such as Parmigiano Reggiano for fear of negative influences on the cheese making process or of altering the sensory characteristics of the cheese [134,135]. FVBPs can be a financially beneficial addition to ruminant diets due to their ability to reduce feeding costs and feed shortages, and improve animal nutrition, leading to increased farm economy [23]. Since no study pursuing a cost-benefit analysis has been published, it is difficult to estimate the exact reduction in feeding costs that FVBPs may provide, but their low cost and good nutritional value make them a promising replacement for green fodders and concentrates in ruminant diets [120]. Romero-Huelva et al. [120] found that tomato and cucumber by-products, as well as a combination of the two, could be an effective and low-cost alternative to concentrate in ruminant diets. Colombino et al. [136] also suggested that fruit pomaces could be a new, low-cost fiber source in animal nutrition. Romero-Huelva et al. [120] further demonstrated that replacing 47% of conventional ingredients in a concentrate for lactating goats with a mixture of tomato fruits, citrus pulp, brewer’s grain, and brewer’s yeast reduced animal feeding costs and methane emissions. There are several challenges that prevent the widespread use of FVBPs as feed. One major issue is their high moisture content, which can often exceed 60–80%, making them difficult to handle, store, and potentially leading to spoilage [137,138]. This high moisture content can also lead to animals consuming less feed, as they are receiving more water, potentially resulting in a lack of enough DM intake, which negatively impacts productivity. The cost of transporting FVBPs with high water content is also higher. In addition, the limited storage time for FVBPs with more than 20% water content can impact feed production. The seasonal availability of fruits and vegetables and their by-products also impacts feed production; Bistanji et al. [139] found that citrus pulp from the juice industry is only available during fall, winter, and spring. Seasonality, bulkiness, and high moisture content accelerate microbial spoilage, the oxidation of organic macromolecules, and the degradation of bioactive compounds; hence, these by-products also require preservation prior to utilization as animal feed [140]. To ensure the long-term use of FVBPs as animal feed, it is important to employ simple, low-cost methods of preservation, such as dehydration and ensiling. These methods can help to conserve FVBPs for use during periods of feed scarcity or throughout the year [141]. Tomato pomace ensiled with dried molasses sugar beet pulp produces high quality silage with improved fermentation [142]. The combination of two or more by products often produces a positive impact on milk production, rumen environment, and nitrogen efficiency, as was the case for the use of a bakery’s former foodstuff and a wheat distiller’s grain [143]. These results are of great interest from an environmental point of view. Tomato and apple pomace ensiled in a 50:50 ratio also had good nutritive value for use in the diet of dairy cows [97]. Citrus pulp ensiled with wheat or rice straw in a 70:30 ratio has also been shown to produce high quality silage [77]. However, the presence of pesticides may limit the use of FVBPs in animal feed, so it is important to regularly monitor for contaminants before incorporating them into ruminant diets [130]. Further research is needed to ascertain the optimum inclusion levels of these by-products from a variety of cultivars grown in a range of conditions and extracted and processed using several methods. There should be a readily accessible facility or analytical technique for the complete measurement and categorization of micronutrients and phytochemicals from FVBPs. The bioactivity, bioavailability, toxicity, interactions, and mode(s) of action of these phytochemicals with other dietary components should be investigated in future research by a thorough evaluation of in vitro and in vivo experiments.

7. Conclusions

FVBPs could be potential sources of non-edible human feed for animal production on a global scale. FVBPs have been shown to promote rumen fermentation efficiency (e.g., increased concentrations of total VFAs, propionate, and acetate-to-propionate ratio, and decreased concentration of NH3-nitrogen etc.) and reduce rumen CH4 emission when added to feed as non-conventional feedstuffs. Since FVBPs are rich in plant secondary compounds, supplementing feed containing bioactive substances has been demonstrated to reduce rumen methanogenesis and lower the animal’s need for food. However, in vivo research revealed that FVBPs had no detrimental effects on animals’ ability to produce. Animal feeding costs can be reduced, farmer revenue can be increased, and the competition between food and feed can be reduced by making efficient and effective use of fruit and vegetable waste products. Additionally, using these non-conventional feed sources will aid in waste management and lessen environmental pollution. To create feed innovations and policy intervention strategies that will promote the broad use of FVBPs for sustainable ruminant production, further study is required.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.J., M.G., L.L. and I.F.; methodology, H.J., M.Z.A. and G.V., supervision L.M.E.M. and A.F.; writing original draft, H.J., M.G. and I.F.; control of the content and structure H.J., G.V., L.L., M.Z.A. and M.C.; supervision I.F., G.V. and A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This publication was funded by the European Union – Next Generation EU. Project Code: ECS00000041; Project CUP: C43C22000380007; Project Title: Innovation, digitalization and sustainability for the diffused economy in Central Italy—VITALITY.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. García-Rodríguez, J.; Ranilla, M.J.; France, J.; Alaiz-Moretón, H.; Carro, M.D.; López, S. Chemical Composition, In Vitro Digestibility and Rumen Fermentation Kinetics of Agro-Industrial By-Products. Animals 2019, 9, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Correddu, F.; Lunesu, M.F.; Buffa, G.; Atzori, A.S.; Nudda, A.; Battacone, G.; Pulina, G. Can Agro-Industrial By-Products Rich in Polyphenols Be Advantageously Used in the Feeding and Nutrition of Dairy Small Ruminants? Animals 2020, 10, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Sadh, P.K.; Duhan, S.; Duhan, J.S. Agro-Industrial Wastes and Their Utilization Using Solid State Fermentation: A Review. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Čolović, D.; Rakita, S.; Banjac, V.; Đuragić, O.; Čabarkapa, I. Plant Food By-Products as Feed: Characteristics, Possibilities, Environmental Benefits, and Negative Sides. Food Rev. Int. 2019, 35, 363–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Adhikari, B.K.; Barrington, S.; Martinez, J. Predicted Growth of World Urban Food Waste and Methane Production. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. McClements, D.J. Future Foods: Is It Possible to Design a Healthier and More Sustainable Food Supply? Nutr. Bull. 2020, 45, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Devendra, C.; Leng, R.A. Feed Resources for Animals in Asia: Issues, Strategies for Use, Intensification and Integration for Increased Productivity. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Akram, M.Z. Effect of Cabbage and Kohlrabi Leaf Silages on in Vitro and Classical Nutrient Digestibility in Akkaraman Rams as an Alternative Feed Source. Master’s Thesis, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi/Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Niğde, Turkey, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mahesh, M. Crop Residues for Sustainable Livestock Production. Adv. Dairy Res. 2014, 2, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Röös, E.; Bajželj, B.; Smith, P.; Patel, M.; Little, D.; Garnett, T. Greedy or Needy? Land Use and Climate Impacts of Food in 2050 under Different Livestock Futures. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saritha, M.; Arora, A. Lata Biological Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Substrates for Enhanced Delignification and Enzymatic Digestibility. Indian J. Microbiol. 2012, 52, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau, A.; Rinne, M.; Lamminen, M.; Mapato, C.; Ampapon, T.; Wanapat, M.; Vanhatalo, A. Review: Alternative and Novel Feeds for Ruminants: Nutritive Value, Product Quality and Environmental Aspects. Animal 2018, 12, s295–s309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Rakita, S.; Banjac, V.; Djuragic, O.; Cheli, F.; Pinotti, L. Soybean Molasses in Animal Nutrition. Animals 2021, 11, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cavallini, D.; Mammi, L.M.E.; Palmonari, A.; García-González, R.; Chapman, J.D.; McLean, D.J.; Formigoni, A. Effect of an Immunomodulatory Feed Additive in Mitigating the Stress Responses in Lactating Dairy Cows to a High Concentrate Diet Challenge. Animals 2022, 12, 2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vastolo, A.; Calabrò, S.; Cutrignelli, M.I. A Review on the Use of Agro-Industrial CO-Products in Animals’ Diets. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dilucia, F.; Lacivita, V.; Conte, A.; Del Nobile, M.A. Sustainable Use of Fruit and Vegetable By-Products to Enhance Food Packaging Performance. Foods 2020, 9, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mirzaei, A.; Maheri-Sis, N. Nutritive Value of Some AgroIndustrial By-Products for Ruminants—A Review. World J. Zool. 2008, 3, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
  18. Branciari, R.; Galarini, R.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Miraglia, D.; Roila, R.; Acuti, G.; Giusepponi, D.; Dal Bosco, A.; Ranucci, D. Effects of Olive Mill Vegetation Water Phenol Metabolites Transferred to Muscle through Animal Diet on Rabbit Meat Microbial Quality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  20. Henderson, B.; Falcucci, A.; Mottet, A.; Early, L.; Werner, B.; Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P. Marginal Costs of Abating Greenhouse Gases in the Global Ruminant Livestock Sector. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2017, 22, 199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yanza, Y.R.; Szumacher-Strabel, M.; Bryszak, M.; Gao, M.; Kolodziejski, P.; Stochmal, A.; Slusarczyk, S.; Patra, A.K.; Cieslak, A. Coleus Amboinicus (Lour.) Leaves as a Modulator of Ruminal Methanogenesis and Biohydrogenation in Vitro1. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 4868–4881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moate, P.J.; Williams, S.R.O.; Torok, V.A.; Hannah, M.C.; Ribaux, B.E.; Tavendale, M.H.; Eckard, R.J.; Jacobs, J.L.; Auldist, M.J.; Wales, W.J. Grape Marc Reduces Methane Emissions When Fed to Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 5073–5087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Tayengwa, T.; Mapiye, C. Citrus and Winery Wastes: Promising Dietary Supplements for Sustainable Ruminant Animal Nutrition, Health, Production, and Meat Quality. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Mahmoud Abdel Gawad, A.R.; Ahamed Hanafy, M.; Mohamed Mahmoud, A.E.; Hassan Al-Slibi, Y. Effect of Tomato Pomace, Citrus and Beet Pulp on Productive Performance and Milk Quality of Egyptian Buffaloes. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 23, 1210–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Devi, S.; Gupta, C.; Jat, S.L.; Parmar, M.S. Crop Residue Recycling for Economic and Environmental Sustainability: The Case of India. Open Agric. 2017, 2, 486–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Salami, S.A.; Luciano, G.; O’Grady, M.N.; Biondi, L.; Newbold, C.J.; Kerry, J.P.; Priolo, A. Sustainability of Feeding Plant By-Products: A Review of the Implications for Ruminant Meat Production. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2019, 251, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Palmonari, A.; Cavallini, D.; Sniffen, C.J.; Fernandes, L.; Holder, P.; Fusaro, I.; Giammarco, M.; Formigoni, A.; Mammi, L.M.E. In vitro evaluation of sugar digestibility in molasses. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abarghuei, M.J.; Rouzbehan, Y.; Alipour, D. The Influence of the Grape Pomace on the Ruminal Parameters of Sheep. Livest. Sci. 2010, 132, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guerra-Rivas, C.; Gallardo, B.; Mantecón, Á.R.; del Álamo-Sanza, M.; Manso, T. Evaluation of Grape Pomace from Red Wine By-Product as Feed for Sheep. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 1885–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Correddu, F.; Nudda, A.; Battacone, G.; Boe, R.; Francesconi, A.H.D.; Pulina, G. Effects of Grape Seed Supplementation, Alone or Associated with Linseed, on Ruminal Metabolism in Sarda Dairy Sheep. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2015, 199, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Castrica, M.; Rebucci, R.; Giromini, C.; Tretola, M.; Cattaneo, D.; Baldi, A. Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity of Agri-Food Waste and by-Products. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fegeros, K.; Zervas, G.; Stamouli, S.; Apostolaki, E. Nutritive Value of Dried Citrus Pulp and Its Effect on Milk Yield and Milk Composition of Lactating Ewes. J. Dairy Sci. 1995, 78, 1116–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mirzaei-Aghsaghali, A.; Maheri-Sis, N.; Mansouri, H.; Razeghi, M.E.; Mirza-Aghazadeh, A.; Cheraghi, H.; Aghajanzadeh-Golshani, A. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science Evaluating Potential Nutritive Value of Pomegranate Processing By-Products for Ruminants Using In Vitro Gas Production Technique. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2011, 6, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  34. Giller, K.; Bossut, L.; Eggerschwiler, L.; Terranova, M. In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation, Methane Production and Nutrient Degradability as Affected by Fruit and Vegetable Pomaces in Differing Concentrations. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 106, 957–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Steyn, L.; Meeske, R.; Cruywagen, C.W. The Effect of Replacing Maize with Dried Apple Pomace in the Concentrate on Performance of Jersey Cows Grazing Kikuyu Pasture. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2018, 239, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nudda, A.; Buffa, G.; Atzori, A.S.; Cappai, M.G.; Caboni, P.; Fais, G.; Pulina, G. Small Amounts of Agro-Industrial Byproducts in Dairy Ewes Diets Affects Milk Production Traits and Hematological Parameters. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2019, 251, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abbeddou, S.; Rischkowsky, B.; Richter, E.K.; Hess, H.D.; Kreuzer, M. Modification of Milk Fatty Acid Composition by Feeding Forages and Agro-Industrial Byproducts from Dry Areas to Awassi Sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 4657–4668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Razzaghi, A.; Naserian, A.A.; Valizadeh, R.; Ebrahimi, S.H.; Khorrami, B.; Malekkhahi, M.; Khiaosa-ard, R. Pomegranate Seed Pulp, Pistachio Hulls, and Tomato Pomace as Replacement of Wheat Bran Increased Milk Conjugated Linoleic Acid Concentrations without Adverse Effects on Ruminal Fermentation and Performance of Saanen Dairy Goats. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2015, 210, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sol, C.; Castillejos, L.; López-Vergé, S.; Gasa, J. Prediction of the Digestibility and Energy Contents of Non-Conventional By-Products for Pigs from Their Chemical Composition and in Vitro Digestibility. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2017, 234, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Abo-Zeid, H.M.; El-Zaiat, H.M.; Morsy, A.S.; Attia, M.F.A.; Abaza, M.A.; Sallam, S.M.A. Effects of Replacing Dietary Maize Grains with Increasing Levels of Sugar Beet Pulp on Rumen Fermentation Constituents and Performance of Growing Buffalo Calves. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2017, 234, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lu, S.; Chen, S.; Li, H.; Paengkoum, S.; Taethaisong, N.; Meethip, W.; Surakhunthod, J.; Sinpru, B.; Sroichak, T.; Archa, P.; et al. Sustainable Valorization of Tomato Pomace (Lycopersicon esculentum) in Animal Nutrition: A Review. Animals 2022, 12, 3294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marcos, C.N.; de Evan, T.; Molina-Alcaide, E.; Carro, M.D. Nutritive Value of Tomato Pomace for Ruminants and Its Influence on In Vitro Methane Production. Animals 2019, 9, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Zhao, Y.; Guo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, R.; Li, J. Effects of tomato pomace fermentation feed on growth performance, milk composition and blood cell parameters for Xinjiang Brown cows. Xinjiang Agric. Sci. 2012, 49, 1546–1551. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ishida, K.; Kishi, Y.; Oishi, K.; Hirooka, H.; Kumagai, H. Effects of Feeding Polyphenol-Rich Winery Wastes on Digestibility, Nitrogen Utilization, Ruminal Fermentation, Antioxidant Status and Oxidative Stress in Wethers. Anim. Sci. J. 2015, 86, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Guerra-Rivas, C.; Vieira, C.; Rubio, B.; Martínez, B.; Gallardo, B.; Mantecón, A.R.; Lavín, P.; Manso, T. Effects of Grape Pomace in Growing Lamb Diets Compared with Vitamin E and Grape Seed Extract on Meat Shelf Life. Meat Science 2016, 116, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Tsiplakou, E.; Zervas, G. The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Olive Tree Leaves and Grape Marc on the Content of Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Vaccenic Acid in the Milk of Dairy Sheep and Goats. J. Dairy Res. 2008, 75, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Paya, H.; Taghizadeh, A.; Lashkari, S.; Shirmohammadi, S. Evaluation of rumen fermentation kinetics of some by-products using in situ and in vitro gas production technique. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 45, 127–133. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lashkari, S.; Taghizadeh, A. Nutrient digestibility and evaluation of protein and carbohydrate fractionation of citrus by-products. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 97, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shdaifat, M.M.; Al-Barakah, F.S.; Kanan, A.Q.; Obeidat, B.S. The Effect of Feeding Agricultural By-Products on Performance of Lactating Awassi Ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 2013, 113, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Valenti, B.; Luciano, G.; Morbidini, L.; Rossetti, U.; Codini, M.; Avondo, M.; Priolo, A.; Bella, M.; Natalello, A.; Pauselli, M. Dietary Pomegranate Pulp: Effect on Ewe Milk Quality during Late Lactation. Animals 2019, 9, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Eliyahu, D.; Shaani, Y.; Yosef, E.; Ben-Meir, Y.; Nikbachat, M.; Solomon, R.; Mabjeesh, S.J.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Miron, J. Effect of ensiling pomegranate pulp with solid additives on chemical composition, intake and digestibility by sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 131, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Safari, M.; Ghasemi, E.; Alikhani, M.; Ansari-Mahyari, S. Supplementation effects of pomegranate by-products on oxidative status, metabolic profile, and performance in transition dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 11297–11309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Abbas, H.; Abd- EL kader, Y. Effect of Dietary Pomegranate Peel (Punica Granatum) Supplementation on Milk Production and Quality of Labneh of Friesian Dairy Cows. J. Anim. Poult. Prod. 2019, 10, 395–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Quideau, S.; De_eux, D.; Douat-Casassus, C.; Pouységu, L. Plant polyphenols: Chemical properties, biological activities, and synthesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 586–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bravo, L. Polyphenols: Chemistry, Dietary Sources, Metabolism, and Nutritional Significance. Nutr. Rev. 1998, 56, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Goel, G.; Makkar, H.P.S. Methane Mitigation from Ruminants Using Tannins and Saponins. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Fernández, P.d.F.; Mantecón, Á.R.; Angulo, G.H.; García, F.J.G. Tannins and Ruminant Nutrition: Review. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2004, 2, 191–202. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kobayashi, Y.; Oh, S.; Myint, H.; Koike, S. Use of Asian Selected Agricultural Byproducts to Modulate Rumen Microbes and Fermentation. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Kim, E.T.; Guan, L.L.; Lee, S.J.; Lee, S.M.; Lee, S.S.; Lee, I.D.; Lee, S.K.; Lee, S.S. Effects of Flavonoid-Rich Plant Extracts on In Vitro Ruminal Methanogenesis, Microbial Populations and Fermentation Characteristics. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Bonilla, F. Extraction of Phenolic Compounds from Red Grape Marc for Use as Food Lipid Antioxidants. Food Chem. 1999, 66, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Teixeira, A.; Baenas, N.; Dominguez-Perles, R.; Barros, A.; Rosa, E.; Moreno, D.A.; Garcia-Viguera, C. Natural Bioactive Compounds from Winery By-Products as Health Promoters: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 15638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Spanghero, M.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Robinson, P.H. Chemical Composition, Including Secondary Metabolites, and Rumen Fermentability of Seeds and Pulp of Californian (USA) and Italian Grape Pomaces. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2009, 152, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lutterodt, H.; Slavin, M.; Whent, M.; Turner, E.; Yu, L. (Lucy) Fatty Acid Composition, Oxidative Stability, Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Properties of Selected Cold-Pressed Grape Seed Oils and Flours. Food Chem. 2011, 128, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alonso, Á.M.; Guillén, D.A.; Barroso, C.G.; Puertas, B.; García, A. Determination of Antioxidant Activity of Wine Byproducts and Its Correlation with Polyphenolic Content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 5832–5836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Santana-Méridas, O.; González-Coloma, A.; Sánchez-Vioque, R. Agricultural Residues as a Source of Bioactive Natural Products. Phytochem. Rev. 2012, 11, 447–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ozturk, B.; Parkinson, C.; Gonzalez-Miquel, M. Extraction of Polyphenolic Antioxidants from Orange Peel Waste Using Deep Eutectic Solvents. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2018, 206, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Elfalleh, W. Total Phenolic Contents and Antioxidant Activities of Pomegranate Peel, Seed, Leaf and Flower. J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 4724–4730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ambigaipalan, P.; de Camargo, A.C.; Shahidi, F. Phenolic Compounds of Pomegranate Byproducts (Outer Skin, Mesocarp, Divider Membrane) and Their Antioxidant Activities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 6584–6604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gullon, B.; Pintado, M.E.; Pérez-Álvarez, J.A.; Viuda-Martos, M. Assessment of Polyphenolic Profile and Antibacterial Activity of Pomegranate Peel (Punica Granatum) Flour Obtained from Co-Product of Juice Extraction. Food Control 2016, 59, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Abarghuei, M.J.; Rouzbehan, Y.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Zamiri, M.J. Nitrogen Balance, Blood Metabolites and Milk Fatty Acid Composition of Dairy Cows Fed Pomegranate-Peel Extract. Livest. Sci. 2014, 164, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vrhovsek, U.; Rigo, A.; Tonon, D.; Mattivi, F. Quantitation of Polyphenols in Different Apple Varieties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 6532–6538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Villarreal, M.; Cochran, R.C.; Rojas-Bourrillón, A.; Murillo, O.; Muñoz, H.; Poore, M. Effect of Supplementation with Pelleted Citrus Pulp on Digestibility and Intake in Beef Cattle Fed a Tropical Grass-Based Diet (Cynodon Nlemfuensis). Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2006, 125, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jerónimo, E.; Alfaia, C.M.M.; Alves, S.P.; Dentinho, M.T.P.; Prates, J.A.M.; Vasta, V.; Santos-Silva, J.; Bessa, R.J.B. Effect of Dietary Grape Seed Extract and Cistus Ladanifer L. in Combination with Vegetable Oil Supplementation on Lamb Meat Quality. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. de Assis, A.J.; Campos, J.M.d.S.; Valadares Filho, S.d.C.; de Queiroz, A.C.; Lana, R.d.P.; Euclydes, R.F.; Mendes Neto, J.; Magalhães, A.L.R.; Mendonça, S.d.S. Citrus Pulp in Diets for Milking Cows. 1. Intake of Nutrients, Milk Production and Composition. R. Bras. Zootec. 2004, 33, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Cribbs, J.T.; Bernhard, B.C.; Young, T.R.; Jennings, M.A.; Burdick Sanchez, N.C.; Carroll, J.A.; Callaway, T.R.; Schmidt, T.B.; Johnson, B.J.; Rathmann, R.J. Dehydrated Citrus Pulp Alters Feedlot Performance of Crossbred Heifers during the Receiving Period and Modulates Serum Metabolite Concentrations before and after an Endotoxin Challenge1. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 5791–5800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Zhao, J.X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, R.X.; Liu, W.Z.; Ren, Y.S.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, J.X. Effect of Dietary Grape Pomace on Growth Performance, Meat Quality and Antioxidant Activity in Ram Lambs. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2018, 236, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wadhwa, M.; Bakshi, M.P.S.; Makkar, H.P.S. Utilization of Fruit and Vegetable Wastes as Livestock Feed and as Substrates for Generation of Other Value-Added Products. Rap Publ. 2013, 4, 67. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ghoreishi, S.; Rasoul, P.; Teimouri, A. Effects of Ensiled Apple Pomace on Milk Yield, Milk Composition and DM Intake of Holstein Dairy Cows. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2007, 6, 1074–1078. [Google Scholar]
  79. Fang, J.; Xia, G.; Cao, Y. Effects of Replacing Commercial Material with Apple Pomace on the Fermentation Quality of Total Mixed Ration Silage and Its Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance and Rumen Fermentation in Wethers. Grassl. Sci. 2020, 66, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Belibasakis, N.G. The Effect of Dried Tomato Pomace on Milk Yield and Its Composition, and on Some Blood Plasma Biochemical Components in the Cow. World Rev. Anim. Prod. 1990, 25, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jayanegara, A.; Palupi, E. Condensed Tannin Effects on Nitrogen Digestion in Ruminants: A Meta-Analysis from in Vitro and in Vivo Studies. Media Peternak. 2010, 33, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Romero, M.J.; Madrid, J.; Hernández, F.; Cerón, J.J. Digestibility and Voluntary Intake of Vine Leaves (Vitis Vinifera L.) by Sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2000, 38, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Frutos, P.; Hervás, G.; Giráldez, F.J.; Mantecón, A.R. Review. Tannins and Ruminant Nutrition. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2004, 2, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Sedighi-Vesagh, R.; Naserian, A.A.; Ghaffari, M.H.; Petit, H.V. Effects of Pistachio By-Products on Digestibility, Milk Production, Milk Fatty Acid Profile and Blood Metabolites in Saanen Dairy Goats. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 99, 777–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Martín García, A.I.; Moumen, A.; Yáñez Ruiz, D.R.; Molina Alcaide, E. Chemical Composition and Nutrients Availability for Goats and Sheep of Two-Stage Olive Cake and Olive Leaves. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2003, 107, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lanza, M.; Scerra, M.; Bognanno, M.; Buccioni, A.; Cilione, C.; Biondi, L.; Priolo, A.; Luciano, G. Fatty Acid Metabolism in Lambs Fed Citrus Pulp1. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 3179–3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Gómez-Cortés, P.; Guerra-Rivas, C.; Gallardo, B.; Lavín, P.; Mantecón, A.R.; de la Fuente, M.A.; Manso, T. Grape Pomace in Ewes Diet: Effects on Meat Quality and the Fatty Acid Profile of Their Suckling Lambs. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Mapiye, C.; Vahmani, P.; Aalhus, J.L.; Rolland, D.C.; Baron, V.S.; Block, H.C.; Uttaro, B.; Dugan, M.E.R.; McAllister, T.A. Fatty Acid Composition of Beef Steers as Affected by Diet and Fat Depot. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 45, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Foiklang, S.; Wanapat, M.; Norrapoke, T. Effect of Grape Pomace Powder, Mangosteen Peel Powder and Monensin on Nutrient Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation, Nitrogen Balance and Microbial Protein Synthesis in Dairy Steers. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 1416–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Santos, G.T.; Lima, L.S.; Schogor, A.L.B.; Romero, J.V.; De Marchi, F.E.; Grande, P.A.; Santos, N.W.; Santos, F.S.; Kazama, R. Citrus Pulp as a Dietary Source of Antioxidants for Lactating Holstein Cows Fed Highly Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Diets. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 1104–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Muhammad, Z.J.; Muhammad, S.; Shoukat, A.B.; Muhammad, Q.B.; Fayyaz, A.; Fawwad, A.; Muhammad, S.-u.R.; Muhammad, T. Nutrient Intake, Nitrogen Balance and Growth Performance in Buffalo Calves Fed Citrus Pulp as a Concentrate Source. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 2562–2568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Sharif, M.; Ashraf, M.S.; Mushtaq, N.; Nawaz, H.; Mustafa, M.I.; Ahmad, F.; Younas, M.; Javaid, A. Influence of Varying Levels of Dried Citrus Pulp on Nutrient Intake, Growth Performance and Economic Efficiency in Lambs. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Weiss, W.P.; Frobose, D.L.; Koch, M.E. Wet Tomato Pomace Ensiled with Corn Plants for Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 2896–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Jami, E.; Shabtay, A.; Nikbachat, M.; Yosef, E.; Miron, J.; Mizrahi, I. Effects of Adding a Concentrated Pomegranate-Residue Extract to the Ration of Lactating Cows on in Vivo Digestibility and Profile of Rumen Bacterial Population. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 5996–6005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Hatami, A.; Alipour, D.; Hozhabri, F.; Tabatabaei, M. Effect of Different Levels of Pomegranate Marc with or without Polyethylene Glycol on Performance, Nutrients Digestibility and Protozoal Population in Growing Lambs. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2018, 235, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sadq, S.M.; Ramzi, D.O.M.; Hamasalim, H.J.; Ahmed, K.A. Growth Performance and Digestibility in Karadi Lambs Receiving Different Levels of Pomegranate Peels. OJAS 2016, 6, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Abdollahzadeh, F.; Pirmohammadi, R.; Farhoomand, P.; Fatehi, F.; Pazhoh, F.F. The Effect of Ensiled Mixed Tomato and Apple Pomace on Holstein Dairy Cow. Ital J Animal Sci 2010, 9, e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fang, J.; Cao, Y.; Matsuzaki, M.; Suzuki, H. Effects of Apple Pomace Proportion Levels on the Fermentation Quality of Total Mixed Ration Silage and Its Digestibility, Preference and Ruminal Fermentation in Beef Cows. Anim. Sci. J. 2016, 87, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Opio, C.; Gerber, P.; Mottet, A.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G.; MacLeod, M.; Vellinga, T.; Henderson, B.; Steinfeld, H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant Supply Chains—A Global Life Cycle Assessment; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  100. Montes, F.; Meinen, R.; Dell, C.; Rotz, A.; Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Waghorn, G.; Gerber, P.J.; Henderson, B.; Makkar, H.P.S.; et al. SPECIAL TOPICS—Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Animal Operations: II. A Review of Manure Management Mitigation Options1. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5070–5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Kamra, D.N.; Pawar, M.; Singh, B. Effect of Plant Secondary Metabolites on Rumen Methanogens and Methane Emissions by Ruminants. In Dietary Phytochemicals and Microbes; Patra, A.K., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 351–370. ISBN 978-94-007-3926-0. [Google Scholar]
  102. Patra, A.K.; Min, B.-R.; Saxena, J. Dietary Tannins on Microbial Ecology of the Gastrointestinal Tract in Ruminants. In Dietary Phytochemicals and Microbes; Patra, A.K., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 237–262. ISBN 978-94-007-3926-0. [Google Scholar]
  103. Vasta, V.; Daghio, M.; Cappucci, A.; Buccioni, A.; Serra, A.; Viti, C.; Mele, M. Invited Review: Plant Polyphenols and Rumen Microbiota Responsible for Fatty Acid Biohydrogenation, Fiber Digestion, and Methane Emission: Experimental Evidence and Methodological Approaches. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3781–3804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tavendale, M.H.; Meagher, L.P.; Pacheco, D.; Walker, N.; Attwood, G.T.; Sivakumaran, S. Methane Production from in Vitro Rumen Incubations with Lotus Pedunculatus and Medicago Sativa, and Effects of Extractable Condensed Tannin Fractions on Methanogenesis. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2005, 123–124, 403–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rochfort, S.; Parker, A.J.; Dunshea, F.R. Plant Bioactives for Ruminant Health and Productivity. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 299–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Khiaosa-ard, R.; Metzler-Zebeli, B.U.; Ahmed, S.; Muro-Reyes, A.; Deckardt, K.; Chizzola, R.; Böhm, J.; Zebeli, Q. Fortification of Dried Distillers Grains plus Solubles with Grape Seed Meal in the Diet Modulates Methane Mitigation and Rumen Microbiota in Rusitec. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 2611–2626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Cobellis, G.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Yu, Z. Critical Evaluation of Essential Oils as Rumen Modifiers in Ruminant Nutrition: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 545–546, 556–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ohene-Adjei, S.; Chaves, A.V.; McAllister, T.A.; Benchaar, C.; Teather, R.M.; Forster, R.J. Evidence of Increased Diversity of Methanogenic Archaea with Plant Extract Supplementation. Microb. Ecol. 2008, 56, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Patra, A.K.; Saxena, J. Exploitation of Dietary Tannins to Improve Rumen Metabolism and Ruminant Nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Toral, P.G.; Hervás, G.; Bichi, E.; Belenguer, Á.; Frutos, P. Tannins as Feed Additives to Modulate Ruminal Biohydrogenation: Effects on Animal Performance, Milk Fatty Acid Composition and Ruminal Fermentation in Dairy Ewes Fed a Diet Containing Sunflower Oil. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2011, 164, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bodas, R.; Prieto, N.; García-González, R.; Andrés, S.; Giráldez, F.J.; López, S. Manipulation of Rumen Fermentation and Methane Production with Plant Secondary Metabolites. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2012, 176, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Francisco, A.; Alves, S.P.; Portugal, P.V.; Dentinho, M.T.; Jerónimo, E.; Sengo, S.; Almeida, J.; Bressan, M.C.; Pires, V.M.R.; Alfaia, C.M.; et al. Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Citrus Pulp and Rockrose Soft Stems and Leaves on Lamb Meat Quality and Fatty Acid Composition. Animal 2018, 12, 872–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Moate, P.J.; Jacobs, J.L.; Hixson, J.L.; Deighton, M.H.; Hannah, M.C.; Morris, G.L.; Ribaux, B.E.; Wales, W.J.; Williams, S.R.O. Effects of Feeding Either Red or White Grape Marc on Milk Production and Methane Emissions from Early-Lactation Dairy Cows. Animals 2020, 10, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Arco-Pérez, A.; Ramos-Morales, E.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R.; Abecia, L.; Martín-García, A.I. Nutritive Evaluation and Milk Quality of Including of Tomato or Olive By-Products Silages with Sunflower Oil in the Diet of Dairy Goats. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2017, 232, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Omer, H.A.A.; Abdel-Magid, S.S. Incorporation of dried tomato pomace in growing sheep rations. Glob. Vet. 2015, 14, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  116. Piquer, O.; Ródenas, L.; Casado, C.; Blas, E.; Pascual, J.J. Whole Citrus Fruits as an Alternative to Wheat Grain or Citrus Pulp in Sheep Diet: Effect on the Evolution of Ruminal Parameters. Small Rumin. Res. 2009, 83, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sparkes, J.L.; Chaves, A.V.; Fung, Y.T.E.; van Ekris, I.; Bush, R.D. Effects of Replacing Lucerne (Medicago Sativa L.) Hay with Fresh Citrus Pulp on Ruminal Fermentation and Ewe Performance. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 23, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Abarghuei, M.J.; Rouzbehan, Y.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Zamiri, M.J. Nutrient Digestion, Ruminal Fermentation and Performance of Dairy Cows Fed Pomegranate Peel Extract. Livest. Sci. 2013, 157, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Elmorsy, A.M.; Shoukry, M.M.; Soliman, S.M.; Soliman, M.M. Influence of Using Pomegranate Peel Silage in Rations of Dairy Cows on Their Productive Performance; In Review: Houston, TX, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  120. Romero-Huelva, M.; Martín-García, A.I.; Nogales, R.; Molina-Alcaide, E. The Effects of Feed Blocks Containing Tomato and Cucumber By-Products on in Vitro Ruminal Fermentation, Microbiota, and Methane Production. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2013, 22, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Manso, T.; Gallardo, B.; Salvá, A.; Guerra-Rivas, C.; Mantecón, A.R.; Lavín, P.; de la Fuente, M.A. Influence of Dietary Grape Pomace Combined with Linseed Oil on Fatty Acid Profile and Milk Composition. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1111–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Alba, D.F.; Campigotto, G.; Cazarotto, C.J.; dos Santos, D.S.; Gebert, R.R.; Reis, J.H.; Souza, C.F.; Baldissera, M.D.; Gindri, A.L.; Kempka, A.P.; et al. Use of Grape Residue Flour in Lactating Dairy Sheep in Heat Stress: Effects on Health, Milk Production and Quality. J. Therm. Biol. 2019, 82, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Nudda, A.; Correddu, F.; Marzano, A.; Battacone, G.; Nicolussi, P.; Bonelli, P.; Pulina, G. Effects of Diets Containing Grape Seed, Linseed, or Both on Milk Production Traits, Liver and Kidney Activities, and Immunity of Lactating Dairy Ewes. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Abbeddou, S.; Rischkowsky, B.; Hilali, M.E.-D.; Haylani, M.; Hess, H.D.; Kreuzer, M. Supplementing Diets of Awassi Ewes with Olive Cake and Tomato Pomace: On-Farm Recovery of Effects on Yield, Composition and Fatty Acid Profile of the Milk. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Chedea, V.S.; Pelmus, R.S.; Lazar, C.; Pistol, G.C.; Calin, L.G.; Toma, S.M.; Dragomir, C.; Taranu, I. Effects of a Diet Containing Dried Grape Pomace on Blood Metabolites and Milk Composition of Dairy Cows. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 2516–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ebeid, H.M.; Gawad, R.M.A.; Mahmoud, A.E.M. Influence of Ration Containing Tomato Pomace Silage on Performance of Lactating Buffaloes and Milk Quality. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2015, 10, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Modaresi, J.; Fathi Nasri, M.H.; Rashidi, L.; Dayani, O.; Kebreab, E. Short Communication: Effects of Supplementation with Pomegranate Seed Pulp on Concentrations of Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Punicic Acid in Goat Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 4075–4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Kotsampasi, Β.; Christodoulou, C.; Tsiplakou, E.; Mavrommatis, A.; Mitsiopoulou, C.; Karaiskou, C.; Dotas, V.; Robinson, P.H.; Bampidis, V.A.; Christodoulou, V.; et al. Effects of Dietary Pomegranate Pulp Silage Supplementation on Milk Yield and Composition, Milk Fatty Acid Profile and Blood Plasma Antioxidant Status of Lactating Dairy Cows. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2017, 234, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Edwards, N.J.; Parker, W.J. Apple promace as a supplement to pasture for dairy cows in late lactation. In Proceedings-New Zealand Society of Animal Production; New Zealand Society of Animal Prod Publication: Wellington, New Zealand, 1995; Volume 55, p. 67. [Google Scholar]
  130. Manju Wadhwa, M.W.; Bakshi, M.P.S.; Makkar, H.P.S. Waste to Worth: Fruit Wastes and by-Products as Animal Feed. CABI Rev. 2015, 2015, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zou, Z.; Xi, W.; Hu, Y.; Nie, C.; Zhou, Z. Antioxidant Activity of Citrus Fruits. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 885–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Fusaro, I.; Cavallini, D.; Giammarco, M.; Manetta, A.C.; Martuscelli, M.; Mammi, L.M.E.; Lanzoni, L.; Formigoni, A.; Vignola, G. Oxidative Status of Marchigiana Beef Enriched in n-3 Fatty Acids and Vitamin E, Treated with a Blend of Oregano and Rosemary Essential Oils. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 662079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Fusaro, I.; Cavallini, D.; Giammarco, M.; Serio, A.; Mammi, L.M.E.; de Matos Vettori, J.; Lanzoni, L.; Formigoni, A.; Vignola, G. Effect of Diet and Essential Oils on the Fatty Acid Composition, Oxidative Stability and Microbiological Profile of Marchigiana Burgers. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Mordenti, A.L.; Giaretta, E.; Campidonico, L.; Parazza, P.; Formigoni, A. A Review Regarding the Use of Molasses in Animal Nutrition. Animals 2021, 11, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mordenti, A.L.; Brogna, N.; Formigoni, A. The link between feeding dairy cows and Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese production area. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2017, 33, 520–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Colombino, E.; Ferrocino, I.; Biasato, I.; Cocolin, L.S.; Prieto-Botella, D.; Zduńczyk, Z.; Jankowski, J.; Milala, J.; Kosmala, M.; Fotschki, B.; et al. Dried fruit pomace inclusion in poultry diet: Growth performance, intestinal morphology and physiology. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Walker, P. Food Residuals: Waste Product, By-Product, or Coproduct. In Food Waste to Animal Feed; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 17–30. ISBN 978-0-470-29021-7. [Google Scholar]
  138. García, A.J.; Esteban, M.B.; Márquez, M.C.; Ramos, P. Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste: Characterization and Potential Use as Animal Feedstuffs. Waste Manag. 2005, 25, 780–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bistanji, G.; Hamadeh, S.; Hassan, S.H.; Tami, F.; Tannous, R. The potential of agro-industrial byproducts as feeds for livestock in Lebanon. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2000, 12, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  140. Sharma, K.; Mahato, N.; Cho, M.H.; Lee, Y.R. Converting Citrus Wastes into Value-Added Products: Economic and Environmently Friendly Approaches. Nutrition 2017, 34, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Chikwanha, O.C.; Raffrenato, E.; Opara, U.L.; Fawole, O.A.; Setati, M.E.; Muchenje, V.; Mapiye, C. Impact of Dehydration on Retention of Bioactive Profile and Biological Activities of Different Grape (Vitis Vinifera L.) Pomace Varieties. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2018, 244, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sargın, H.; Denek, N. Effect of adding different levels of dried molasses sugar beet pulp on the silage quality and in vitro digestibility of wet tomato pomace silage. Harran Univ. J. Fac. Vet. Med. 2017, 6, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Mammi, L.M.E.; Buonaiuto, G.; Ghiaccio, F.; Cavallini, D.; Palmonari, A.; Fusaro, I.; Massa, V.; Giorgino, A.; Formigoni, A. Combined Inclusion of Former Foodstuff and Distiller Grains in Dairy Cows Ration: Effect on Milk Production, Rumen Environment and Fiber Digestibility. Animals 2022, 12, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 13 00286 g001 550
Figure 1. A summary of merits of using FVBPs in ruminant’s diets.
Figure 1. A summary of merits of using FVBPs in ruminant’s diets.
Agriculture 13 00286 g001
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

Jalal, H.; Giammarco, M.; Lanzoni, L.; Akram, M.Z.; Mammi, L.M.E.; Vignola, G.; Chincarini, M.; Formigoni, A.; Fusaro, I. Potential of Fruits and Vegetable By-Products as an Alternative Feed Source for Sustainable Ruminant Nutrition and Production: A Review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020286

AMA Style

Jalal H, Giammarco M, Lanzoni L, Akram MZ, Mammi LME, Vignola G, Chincarini M, Formigoni A, Fusaro I. Potential of Fruits and Vegetable By-Products as an Alternative Feed Source for Sustainable Ruminant Nutrition and Production: A Review. Agriculture. 2023; 13(2):286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020286

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jalal, Hassan, Melania Giammarco, Lydia Lanzoni, Muhammad Zeeshan Akram, Ludovica M. E. Mammi, Giorgio Vignola, Matteo Chincarini, Andrea Formigoni, and Isa Fusaro. 2023. "Potential of Fruits and Vegetable By-Products as an Alternative Feed Source for Sustainable Ruminant Nutrition and Production: A Review" Agriculture 13, no. 2: 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020286

APA Style

Jalal, H., Giammarco, M., Lanzoni, L., Akram, M. Z., Mammi, L. M. E., Vignola, G., Chincarini, M., Formigoni, A., & Fusaro, I. (2023). Potential of Fruits and Vegetable By-Products as an Alternative Feed Source for Sustainable Ruminant Nutrition and Production: A Review. Agriculture, 13(2), 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020286

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