Open access peer-reviewed chapter

New Advances in Postharvest Technology: An Overview for Feed Production from Postharvest Wastes and By-Products

Written By

Kian Sadeghi, Farhad Parnian-khajehdizaj, Mahdi Ganjkhanlou, Reza Faraji and Zahra Abdollahi

Submitted: 28 February 2023 Reviewed: 06 April 2023 Published: 23 June 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.111539

From the Edited Volume

New Advances in Postharvest Technology

Edited by İbrahim Kahramanoğlu

Chapter metrics overview

118 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Globally agricultural production system generates a substantial proportion of postharvest waste that causes environmental pollution resulting in economic losses and human health-related problems. It is therefore important to make an assessment of this loss and turn it back to the consumption cycle. Processing and conversion of by-products, residues, and agricultural wastes and their reuse in the production cycle is a suitable solution for the economic use of these types of postharvest waste, especially in feeding livestock animals or in related industries. This chapter provides an overview of the assessment of the postharvest wastes that are generated in the field or on the farm at the time of harvest or processing industry. After introducing the potential use of technologies to upgrade postharvest waste for animal feed purposes and briefly discussing livestock performance, this review presents the latest and most interesting research on the use of postharvest wastes as feed.

Keywords

  • plant by-product
  • postharvest waste
  • technology
  • animal feed
  • livestock performance

1. Introduction

Livestock production is rapidly increasing due to population growth, changing lifestyles, and dietary habits in developed industrialized countries. It accounts for approximately 40% of the gross value of agricultural products. Projections indicate that total demand for animal products in developing countries will double by 2030 [1]. Considering this issue and with the aim of dealing with food insecurity and strengthening sustainable agriculture, it is possible to use feeding strategies and feedstuffs that are able to increase livestock productivity and have fewer environmental effects compared to conventional livestock production [2]. In addition to reducing the environmental impacts associated with animal feed production, valorizing plant by-products for feed formulation can maximize resource efficiencies and helps the competitiveness of feed manufacturers by making available of more sustainable raw materials that could reduce dependence on current raw materials [3]. Plant by-products (PBP) include a wide range of secondary residues produced from the industrial processing of plants into valuable commercial products [4]. These by-products are considered safe and widely accepted as animal feed [5]. These by-products include residues from food factories, fruit and vegetable wastes, and grain harvesting by-products. However, the use of plant waste as animal feed has limitations arising from the processes of agricultural products transformation industries, which can affect the possibility of evaluating its nutritional value. For example, its high water content, which is frequently greater than 80%, makes it more difficult and can hasten the spread of microbiological contamination [6]. On the other hand, the use of PBP in animal nutrition is limited due to restrictions such as diversity in nutrient composition and technical requirements for storage, which are necessary to stabilize the product and reduce seasonal availability of resources. Furthermore, preservation methods such as thermal processing can be expensive and diminish the environmental sustainability of PBP feed [5]. Also, the lack of efficient storage strategies is a fundamental barrier that limits the use of PBP in animal feeding, as their intrinsic instability causes quick quality deterioration and severe changes in nutritional composition [7]. This chapter provides information on some agricultural postharvest residues, their chemical composition, processing methods, nutritional value, and guidelines for including PBP in livestock diets. It also covers aspects related to the use of such post-harvest waste as a substrate for the production of value-added products. It is expected that this chapter will promote conversion of agricultural waste into valuable resources and help create opportunities for development. The recycling of these resources saves livestock feed and also reduces the environmental pollution associated with the disposal of PBP.

Advertisement

2. Grape pomace

Grapes are one of the most widely grown crops in the world, with an expected production of more than 79 million tons in 2018 [8]. Grape seeds have a significant amount of oil, which contains large amounts of unsaturated fatty acids, more than 80% of which include linoleic acid (Figure 1) [9].

Figure 1.

Grape plant.

Due to the presence of antioxidant substances such as flavonoids, grape pomace plays an important role in preventing the phenomenon of oxidation by removing free radicals produced from the environment under heat stress [10]. Proanthocyanidins of grape seed extract act as antioxidants in poultry feed, improve the performance of broiler chickens, and treat clinical symptoms caused by oxidative stress caused by Eimeria tenella infection [11]. Grape pomace can be used in animal nutrition, so that the use of its extract in amounts of 62 and 92 mg in the diet of broiler chickens from the age of 3 to 6 weeks prevented the lipid oxidation of the chicken carcasses during their storage in the refrigerator [12]. When grape pomace is fed to cattle as a dietary supplement, it can potentially increase the oxidative stability of beef products by increasing intestinal absorption and transfer of polyphenolic compounds to meat [13]. It has been reported that the use of grape pomace up to 10% of the ration of fattening lambs has no negative effects on the growth performance of lambs (Figures 2 and 3) [15].

Figure 2.

Grape pomace.

Figure 3.

Components of grape pomace [14].

The effects of grape pomace on the quality and characteristics of fatty acids in meat samples obtained from lactating lambs were investigated in the ewe’s diet. The results revealed that grape pomace incorporation did not have any negative effect on the carcasses but improved the water holding capacity [16]. Compared to diets lacking naturally occurring antioxidants, adding antioxidants such polyphenol-rich grape by-products to animal diets enhances meat quality while also preventing oxidation [17]. The appropriate use of grape pomace could increase the growth and production rate and reduce the feed conversion ratio (FCR) in Afshari fattening lambs [18]. Also, in another report, the use of grape pomace resulted in an increase in voluntary feed intake, growth rate, and a decrease in FCR in fattening lambs [19].

Advertisement

3. Pomegranate pomace

Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) is a member of the Punicaceae family and an important native product of subtropical Asia (Figure 4) [20, 21].

Figure 4.

Pomegranate plant.

Pomegranate fruit has approximately 48% peel and 52% fruit (w/w), which is the edible part of fruit and consists of 78% juice and 22% seeds [22, 23]. Pomegranate is rich in vitamins A, B, C, and E, minerals potassium, and iron, which have healing properties. It is also a rich source of folic acid and antioxidants. This fruit contains a significant amount of phenolic compounds such as anthocyanins, punicalin, and various flavonols, which have antimicrobial, antibacterial, and anti-inflammatory properties and increase the immune system in vitro and in vivo [24]. Pomegranate peel contains 55.4% non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC), 8.4% crude protein (CP), 16.7% lignin, 34.5% neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and 0.84–1.0% total condensed tannins [25]. Pomegranate pomace is a by-product of the pomegranate juice industry, which has strong antioxidant power, anti-inflammatory compounds, vitamin E, sterols, phenols, and natural estrogens [26]. Pomegranate by-products offer excellent nutritional value as ruminant feed and can be utilized efficiently to substitute grains in ruminant diets. Feeding cattle calves and a fresh pomegranate peel diet improved feed intake and plasma alpha-tocopherol amount [27]. The antioxidants in pomegranate peel prevent diseases in lambs and have been useful in improving the quality of meat [28]. Substitution of a portion of grain in the diet with dry pomegranate seed pulp had no effect on growth performance, carcass traits, and nutrient digestibility, but it reduced the cost of meat production and increased the antioxidant capacity of lambs. As the pomegranate seed pulp was increased in the diet, it caused a decrease in kidney fat and a tendency to increase the apparent digestion of crude fat [29]. In fattening lambs, it has also been shown that pomegranate pomace silage can significantly replace a part of the fodder, which will result in a reduction in production costs and saving environment from the waste pollution coming from pomegranate processing industries. In another study, dairy goats fed a diet supplemented with dry pomace pomegranate seeds at 14% instead of cereal grain with no detrimental effects on animals. Therefore, it was suggested that pomegranate seed pomace, as a cheap by-product, can be replaced in the diet as an energy source [30]. Dairy cows fed diets supplementing with concentrated pomegranate extract at 1 and 2% based on dry matter, revealed increased the antioxidant activity of milk by 15 and 17.2%, respectively, and compared to the control group [31]. As a new feed for beef cattle, the antioxidant potential and nutrients of fresh and ensiled pomegranate by-products (pomegranate peel) were investigated. The results of this experiment showed that fresh pomegranate peel caused a significant increase in feed intake and alpha-tocopherol concentration in plasma [31]. Inclusion of wet fresh pomegranate peels in diets of bull calves promoted an increase in feed intake, with a tendency to increased weight gain [27]. In contrast, Oliveira et al. [32] found that feeding a pomegranate extract to young calves for the first 70 d of life did not change the digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, or starch, but it suppressed the intake of grain and whole tract digestibility of fat and crude protein, likely because of its high tannin content.

Advertisement

4. Tomato pomace

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) has an annual global production of 170 million tons, of which 127.5 million tons are used for fresh consumption and 42.5 million tons for industrial processing [33] (Figure 5). Asia produces 61.1% of the world’s tomatoes, whereas Europe, the Americas, and Africa provide 13.5, 13.4, and 11.8% of total tomato yield, respectively [34].

Figure 5.

Tomato plant (fruit).

Tomato pomace is a by-product of tomato processing that refers to the skin (peel) and seeds of tomatoes and accounts for 10–40% of all processed tomatoes (Figure 6) [35]. Tomato pomace contains approximately 33% seeds, 27% peel, and 40% pulp, while dry pulp contains approximately 44% seeds and 56% peel and pulp [36] which average protein is 21.9% in tomato pomace and 38.7% in fat-free tomato seeds [37]. Tomato pulp is a good source of lycopene, carotene, vitamin E, vitamin C and nucleosides [38], carotenoids, lycopene, flavonoids, and soluble dietary fiber (Figure 7) [40, 41].

Figure 6.

Tomato pomace.

Figure 7.

Processing and uses of tomato pomace [39].

Tomato pomace is used as an ingredient in small ruminant diets due to its chemical composition and good animal acceptability [42]. In feeding ruminants, tomato pomace is sometimes considered as a concentrate due to the high content of nutrients and sometimes as forage because of its high content of the cell wall [43].

Recently, studies have been conducted using tomato residues in the form of silage and considering tomatoes along with other industrial residues in goat diets [44]. Silage of tomato pomace with 10% of wheat straw can be a good quality forage source for sheep when the forage is not available [45]. In a research, dietary replacing 10% of corn silage with ensiled tomato pomace had a positive effect on the vitamin content of milk, antioxidant function, and immunity in early lactating cows [46]. Ruminants fed diets containing tomato pomace showed higher nutritional intake as well as apparent digestibility, organic matter, dry matter (DM), and crude protein indices [47]. Tomato pomace, if properly preserved, can be included in a significant portion of animal rations for a longer period of time and can also be used as a protein and energy supplement in feeding ruminants [48]. Up to 15% of the diets supplied to sheep can be substituted with dried tomato pomace without having any negative impact on growth [49]. The substitution of barley grain diet with tomato and cucumber waste was studied on rumen fermentation and microbial communities in goats and found that up to 250 grams per kilogram of tomato waste can replace the barley grain diet [50]. Supplement consumption increased milk quality and fat content by 20 and 40%, respectively. This demonstrated that, despite the fact that TP decreased the body weight of breastfeeding goats, it might enhance the quality and fat content of their milk, which may be related to the TP’s own energy content and fatty acid composition [39]. In a study, supplementation of different levels of tomato pomace had no effect on the body weight of goats and sheep, carcass length, blood sugar, total protein, urea, or cholesterol [51].

Tomato pomace has also been used in poultry diets, so feeding 5% tomato pomace to chickens at the age of 1–28 days can increase body weight and production index, also increase the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), and reduce HDL cholesterol and serum triglyceride concentrations [52]. The results of another study revealed that dietary inclusion of tomato pomace at 12% can significantly improve the immune system function, antioxidant enzymes, and digestive enzymes of Japanese quails [53]. The concentrate mixture in the feed of male buffaloes can be substituted with sun-dried tomato pomace without having any negative effects on urinary purine derivatives, DM intake, nutritional digestibility, microbial protein synthesis, or production of volatile fatty acids in the rumen [54].

Advertisement

5. Fodder beet pomace

Fodder beetroot belongs to the Chenopdiaceae family, which is native to the temperate region of Europe and was obtained from a cross between white and red garden beet [55] (Figure 8). Fodder beet is a plant with tuberous roots and broad leaves in some countries and is considered one of the most important winter fodder sources for feeding livestock, especially dairy cows [56].

Figure 8.

Fodder beet plant.

Fodder beet has a high digestibility, so its organic matter digestibility is reported to be 87–90%. It has been reported that the net energy of lactation is 7.9 to 8.2 MJ/kg of dry matter, which is equal to or even more than cereal grains [57]. In an experiment with the substitution of 24% beet pomace with barley in diets based on straw fodder in Merino fattening lambs, it was shown that the consumption of concentrate and daily weight gain in the control diet (100% barley) was more than the diet containing beet pomace [58]. Also, dairy cows fed alfalfa or silage grass had lower milk urea and lower urea or creatinine concentrations in their urine when fodder beet was added to their diet [59]. During storage, beets continue to decrease in quality and are prone to spoilage and decay due to high humidity and sugar. However, in some countries, beets are ensiled with other forages to preserve their nutritional value for cattle [60].

Advertisement

6. Olive pomace

Olive (Olea europaea L.) is a small tree of the Oleaceae family, which is widely cultivated in the Mediterranean region. After extracting oil from olives, that is used in food preparation [61], a significant amount of olive pomace is obtained, which includes the peel, fruit, core, fleshy part of the fruit, and the shell of the wooden core (about 25% of the weight of the olive product) (Figure 9) [62].

Figure 9.

Olive plant.

Olive pomace, that is obtained by extracting oil from olive fruit, has a lot of fat and moisture, so with the drying process, its moisture content decreases [63]. Olive pomace also has chemical properties in terms of nutrition, with a high percentage of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. It is also a good source of fatty acids, minerals, and phenolic compounds [64] (Figure 10). Despite having positive impacts, using olive waste as animal feed is not commercially viable because of concerns with digestion, taste, and safety [65].

Figure 10.

Olive pomace.

Non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) are among the anti-nutritional factors found in olives that negatively affect the digestion and absorption of other nutrients. Soluble non-starch polysaccharides increase the viscosity of the contents of the gastrointestinal tract and reduce the digestibility of nutrients, while insoluble NSPs limit enzyme access to the substrate by trapping nutrients [66]. Olive pomace is less used by ruminants due to its high lignin, low crude protein, and poor digestibility compared to forage. However, inclusion of olive pomace to the diet had a positive effect on the production and fat percentage of cow and sheep milk [67]. Several studies have been carried out on the solid-state fermentation of olive pomace using fungal strains, which allows its use as a feed additive for ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, and camels) and poultry [68, 69].

Studies have shown that the use of olive pomace in the diet of laying hens increased egg weight and shell weight, but had no effect on other functional parameters and egg quality characteristics [70, 71]. In a research study, olive pulp was used at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10% in preliminary and final diets of broilers, and the results showed a significant reduction in feed intake and conversion rate, which could be due to the presence of inhibitory substances in olive pulp [72]. Because of their antibacterial effect against pathogenic intestinal bacteria, phenolic compounds derived from olive leaves may be useful to broilers [73]. Additionally, broilers’ digestive enzymes that alter nutrient digestibility can be stimulated or inhibited by phenolic substances [74].

Advertisement

7. Apple pomace

Apple (Malus domestica Borkh) is one of the earliest known fruits and is commonly grown in temperate climates [75] (Figure 11). Apple pomace is a heterogeneous mixture consisting of skin, core, seed, calyx, stem, and soft tissue.

Figure 11.

Apple plant (fruit).

Apple pomace is rich in pectin, fermentable carbohydrates, minerals, and crude fiber, which increases its use for animal feed [76]. It also contains large amounts of sugar and is rich in various sources of carbon [77] (Figure 12).

Figure 12.

Apple pomace.

Aside from its antioxidant characteristics, apple pomace also contains antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory capabilities [78, 79]. Figure 13 shows apple processing and apple pulp production. When fermented apple pomace is added to sheep diets, meat oxidation was decreased during storage without altering other aspects of meat quality [81]. Apple pomace dietary supplement improved milk production, apparent digestibility of crude protein and neutral detergent fiber, decreased rumen pH, and improved milk quality and serum biochemical parameters in Guanzhong dairy goats [82]. Feeding fermented apple pomace with basic rations to dairy cows leads to an average increase in milk production (1.90–1.89 kg per cow per day), milk fat, milk protein, and milk solid content, with a decrease in the incidence of disease in cows [83].

Figure 13.

Processing of apple and generation of apple pomace [80].

Moreover, the alfalfa forage in the ration of fattening lambs was replaced with ensiled apple pomace in proportions of 20, 40, and 60% and result of the experiment revealed that a diet containing 20% apple pomace silage increased the daily feed intake and increased the body weight of the lambs [84]. In another experiment, replacing of alfalfa in the diet of Arabian sheep with 30% dry apple pomace improved the activity of rumen microbes in digestion and fermentation of diet nutrients by reducing the duration of rumination and chewing time [85]. The reason for this was the probability of the cell wall and the size of the smaller particles in the diet containing apple pomace. In other words, it has been discovered that increasing the amount of cell wall in the diet or the size of the forage particles increases chewing activity [86]. However, apple pomace has disadvantages. The main concern of apple pomace is related to the environmental pollution caused by its waste accumulation, and it is not considered as a high-quality feed for animals due to its low protein content [87].

Advertisement

8. Fruit and vegetable waste

In recent years, the use of agricultural by-products in feeding animals has proven to be a successful solution for reducing feed costs, reducing environmental pollution, and ensuring the quick and inexpensive return of these materials to the nature cycle [88]. Nutrition is thought to be the most important determinant of increasing animal output. However, in agriculturally dependent nations, poor nutrition and pricey feedstuffs, particularly concentrate feed, are the main obstacles [89]. Dry citrus pomace is the best nutritional citrus product for livestock, and it is prepared for feeding all year round. Fresh citrus pomace has a moisture content of 85–88%, so adding moisture-absorbing materials in ensiling it can increase the quality of silage production [90]. The chemical and physical composition of citrus by-products is different depending on the type of fruit and the type of processing in the processing factories [91]. Vitamins, polyphenols (particularly anthocyanins), dietary fiber, and important unsaturated fatty acids are among the bioactive components found in fruit pulp [92]. Citrus pomace, tomato pomace, apple pomace, sugarcane pomace, and pistachio peel are among the by-products of agricultural transformation industries that are used as potential sources for animal feed [93]. Fruit and vegetable waste (FVW), waste from the food industry, vegetable industry, and general markets can be added to animal feed without adverse effects due to the presence of nutrients, minerals, fiber, vitamins, and bioactive compounds [94]. Considering that the cost of animal feed is increasing due to the increase in the cost of fertilizer and unsuitable climate for agriculture, therefore, food waste is an alternative source of feed ingredients. It can reduce feed and disposal costs and reduce environmental pollution [95]. Fruit and vegetable processing industries produce a large amount of waste, which is an excellent source of nutrients for livestock [7]. The use of FVW as an animal feed material has the potential to assist meet the increasing demand for animal protein as the world’s population grows through 2050 [54]. In addition, transferring FVW to livestock feed can help sustain livestock production and reduce competition for land and water use [96]. In order to grow livestock populations and combat the feed crisis while lowering environmental risks and addressing the problems provided by diverse biophysical elements, the interaction between waste management and sustainable livestock feed production can be crucial [97]. Dairy cows’ diets supplemented with 18% fruit and vegetable residues as part of the concentrate resulted in milk with a higher percentage of beneficial fatty acids without reducing daily milk production [98]. A mixture of waste juices from various fruits and vegetables, such as carrots, apples, mangoes, avocados, and oranges, can make up to 20 percent of a broiler’s diet [99]. The main limitation of using agricultural waste and products from transformation industries as animal feed is the abundance of secondary compounds such as saponins, tannins, and essential oils in these products, which can limit the widespread use of these co-products in animal feed [100].

Carrot (Ducus carota) is one of the root vegetables that are damaged during harvest or discarded due to low quality, which can be a good feed for ruminants. Carrot pomace spoils very quickly due to high water activity. Drying carrot pomace is considered a suitable solution for maximizing the use of abundant nutrient sources in carrot pomace as well as increasing its shelf life. Carrot pomace is rich in insoluble fiber such as lignocellulose, which is a combination of pectin polysaccharides, hemicellulose, and cellulose, and these components have favorable physiological properties. Carrot pomace based on dry matter contains 2.7% crude protein, 24% insoluble fiber in neutral detergent, 15% insoluble fiber in acidic detergent, and 4.9% phenolic compounds, as well as carotenoids and soluble sugars such as sucrose, fructose, and xylose, which can be used in animal feeding [101].

Potato peel is one of the agricultural wastes that can be utilized as an alternative feed for animals due to its natural sources of energy and fiber with low protein levels [102]. Potato peel as a by-product of the food industry is a completely cheap, valuable, and cost-effective raw material for the production of economically important materials, added value, and product extraction, including biopolymers, natural antioxidants, dietary fiber, and natural food additives [103]. Potato peel contains polyphenols and various phenolic acids that are responsible for its antioxidant activities. Moreover, chemical composition of this by-product consists of 25% starch, 30% non-starch polysaccharide, 20% acid-soluble and acid-insoluble lignin, 18% protein, 6% ash, and 1% fat in dry form [104, 105]. When potato peel with high starch concentrations was fed, milk fat content was higher in dairy cows. It seems that the slow breakdown of starch from potato peels in the rumen can increase the higher transport of precursors of milk fat synthesis in the udder [106]. Also, starch, as one of the side products of potatoes, is the most abundant source of energy for the most livestock [107].

Another study was conducted on adult rams to determine the chemical composition, nutrient digestibility, and mineral content of potato compared to alfalfa as a forage in ruminants. The findings revealed that potato had much higher mineral, DM, and NDF digestibility than alfalfa. It can be stated that potato leaves are a nutritious alternative to other types of forages for ruminants because of their high nutritional value [108]. In one study, a significant increase in milk production was observed after supplementation with 6 kg of potato waste per day [109].

Advertisement

9. Waste and by-products of grain post-harvest

Plant residues are a post-harvest by-product, and the quantity harvested is directly related to all the factors that normally affect crop yield. Rice bran is a rice processing by-product which accounts for tons of food waste per year. In comparison with other grains, rice bran is rich in terms of nutrient density, amino acid, and fatty acid characteristics, including 74% unsaturated fatty acids and tocopherol content. Both protein and fat in rice bran have relatively high biological values [110]. Rice bran can be used up to 10% without any adverse effect on laying performance, digestive organs, and egg quality [111]. The use of fine-grain straw has also become common in the diet of dairy cows. There are three primary reasons why straw should be included in diets provided to dry and lactating dairy cows or dairy heifers [112]: 1) to reduce the density of nutrients (primarily energy) in the diet. For dairy heifer diets, straw is usually added to the diet to dilute the energy content. 2) For “drying” wet diets. Straw can be added to diets formulated with wet ingredients to increase the amount of dry matter in the ration and make it more suitable for dairy cows. 3) Changing the ratio of cation to anion in the diet of dry cows. Straws are often low in potassium, and low-potassium forages can help prevent milk fever in dairy cows [112].

Grain processing techniques are classified into two groups: physical and chemical processing. Physical processing, includes rolling, crimping, and grinding, breaks the outer tissues of the grain and provides access to rumen microorganisms and digestive enzymes. Chemical treatment with alkalis, for example, sodium hydroxide or ammonia, has a similar effect to rolling or crushing on access to rumen microbes and digestive enzymes [113]. Attempts have been made to replace concentrate feed in traditional animal diets with fermented wheat straw, especially to reduce the cost of animal feed. The use of wheat straw as an additive causes the least decomposition of dry matter compared to other additives [114]. Using symbiotic lignocellulose-decomposing bacteria from termite guts to process agricultural by-products can improve their nutritional value by degrading lignin, a component resistant to rumen fermentation, and boosting plant cell wall digestibility [115]. For 6 weeks, lignocellulosic biomass from wheat straw (LBWS) and palm leaf (Phoenix dactylifera) (LBDL) were incubated with lignocellulose-degrading bacteria isolated from termite gut, which altered their chemical composition and boosted nutrient digestibility [116]. Barley straw has a better nutritional value than wheat straw, with an average of 90.9% dry matter, 3.8% crude protein, and 6 mega joules of metabolizable energy per kilogram of dry matter. However, it is high in lignocellulose and low in calcium and phosphorus. Ruminant animals can be fed with barley straw because rumen microorganisms can ferment the cell walls [117]. In addition to the physical and biological methods used in straw processing, chemicals can be used to break the interpolymeric bonds in the cell wall to release carbohydrates (such as hemicelluloses) that are readily fermented by ruminal microorganisms. The use of alkaline substances such as NaOH, KOH, Ca(OH)2, wood ash, or urea is mainly associated with improved digestibility and may improve the value of low-quality feeds [118, 119, 120] Corn residue has been used for decades for grazing, bedding, or harvesting as supplemental feed for beef and dairy cattle [121]. Corn processing methods that economically increase digestibility and acceptability without adversely affecting rumen pH or disrupting digestive function include: (1) particle size reduction, which results in dry rolled or dry ground grain with or without moisture addition (tempering); 2) ensiling with inherent moisture before the grain has dried in the field to create high-moisture maize, or reconstituting maize before ensiling and/or feeding.; 3) steaming flaking [122] and microwave irradiation [118, 123, 124]. Sugarcane bagasse is a fibrous residue from the process of extracting water from sugarcane stalks that is available in large quantities and can be used as an alternative source of forage for ruminant feed. Due to the conversion of agricultural and industrial waste into animal feed, sugarcane bagasse is regarded as a tool for achieving value-added and ecologically responsible activities [125]. The effect of sugarcane bagasse on beef cattle has been investigated with the aim of maximizing their performance, and it was reported that sugarcane bagasse can be used as an exclusive source of forage for beef cattle [126]. However, it has low nutritional value and high indigestible fiber content as dry matter (DM), such as ether extract (0.31%), protein (2.67%), hemicellulose (51.5%), cellulose (54.61%), and lignin (14.29%), which leads to low digestibility (26.7%) and consequently poor animal performance [127]. The results of several studies have shown that the pistachio by-product has a high nutritional value and has good potential to be used in ruminant diets [128]. The pistachio by-product is high in non-fiber carbohydrates (36.40–9.4%), neutral detergent fiber (30.9%), and crude protein (11.4%) [129]. Feeding 21% pistachio by-products and palm waste silage to lambs increases their lean meat yield compared with control [130].

Advertisement

10. Food waste

Food waste can be used to replace some of the grains and vegetable protein sources used in animal feed, reducing food competition between humans and animals [131]. Food waste continues to be a global problem with negative environmental, economic, and social consequences [132]. Recently, FAO [34] defined food waste using two indicators: 1) Food that is lost through production or the supply chain before it reaches the retail level 2) Food that is then thrown out by consumers or retailers [133]. As “up-cyclers,” livestock may turn inedible items into high-quality protein in the form of meat, eggs, and milk, decreasing food loss and waste [134].

The use of food waste in feeding animals has the potential to increase food security, reduce the environmental effects of the agro-food system, and reduce the costs of producing animal products [135]. Figure 14 illustrates the significance of food waste and food loss as ecosystem services connected with animal production.

Figure 14.

Food waste is generated in food processing plants, restaurants, household, and food markets [136].

Some food waste can be used directly as livestock feed, while others must be processed further. Food waste, which primarily consists of rice, pasta, and vegetables, comprises a high percentage of volatile substances and a high moisture level of 74–90%. It is mainly composed of degradable carbohydrates (41–62%), fats (13–30%), and proteins (15–25%) [137, 138]. In different feeding experiments, the proportion of food waste used in diets varied from 10–100%. Animal weight increase and/or feed efficiency responses differed according to animal species and physiological stage, period of experimental feeding, and type of food waste [134].

A variety of technologies for processing food waste have been documented, which can be divided into three groups: Wet-based, dry-based, and ensiling/fermentation treatments. Wet-based methods usually involve a simple heating step to sterilize the raw material, making it safe for animals. Wet-based feed products are high in moisture content (70–80%) with a relatively short storage life. For example, García et al. [6] sorted food waste out of municipal solid waste and heated it to 65–80°C for 10–60 min and then analyzed for nutrients, microbes, and toxins as potential feed. Westendorf et al. [139] heated food waste and food processing by-products at 100°C for 4 h to be used in pig feeding trials. Dry-based treatment combined with heating (sterilization) can produce long shelf life feeds (80–95% DM) that are easier to handle. Paek et al. [140] processed household food waste by rinsing, grinding, dewatering, and vacuum dehydration. Kim and Kim [141] described conversion of residential and restaurant food waste to dry feed by shredding and dewatering, heat-sterilizing, further dewatering, and drying. The ensiling/fermentation operation usually involves a heating sterilization process followed by the addition of prescribed microbial/yeast agents [134]. Procedures and conditions of ensiling/fermentation varied depending on individual studies. For example, Moon et al. [142] ground household food waste, heated it to 140°C, then aerobically fermented it for 24 h at 30–40°C with a probiotic microbial mix containing yeast, lactic acid bacteria, and E. coli. In another study, Kwak and Kang [143] aerobically fermented ground restaurant food waste with a microbial culture and poultry litter at 55–60°C for 4 h, then vacuum-dried it. Ensiling/fermentation treatment helps prolong the storage of the end product. For instance, Murray Martinez et al. [144] reported that feed produced from cafeteria food waste after fermentation was stable for up to 30 days. The primary or industrial processing of food intended for human and animal use has produced a significant amount of wastes that, despite their potential to cause pollution, have nutritional value and can be used to create monogastric meals [145].

11. Animal waste as a source of protein

Animal by-products from slaughtered animals that are not directly consumed by humans are commonly used as feed ingredients, for example, meat meal, bone meal, feather meal, blood meal, skin, slaughterhouse waste such as rumen content [146]. There are two sources of dietary protein, namely animal-based proteins and plant-based proteins. Plant proteins are usually low in lysine and methionine and have less biological value [147]. In the diet of broiler chickens, feather meal, fish meal, poultry by-products, and meat and bone meal are mainly used [148]. One of these slaughterhouse wastes is the rumen content, and it is considered as a potential alternative protein source [146]. The rumen content is relatively rich in crude protein and other microflora such as fungi, protozoa, and bacteria, so they are dried and crushed and mixed into animal and poultry diets. Using it as animal feed also increases the economic efficiency of slaughterhouse by-products [149].

A good supply of animal fat, protein, calcium, and readily available phosphorus is meat and bone meal. However, the results of laboratory tests from different rendering plants show a wide variation in crude protein (67.7–38.5%), ash (13–56.5%), crude fat (4.3–15.3%), and gross energy showed 9.4 22.3 MJ/kg [150]. Due to the diversity in the composition of raw materials and rendering processes, meat and bone meal probably has the high diversity in nutrient quality [151]. Poultry waste is high in minerals, total digestible nutrients (TDN), and protein (approximately 25% protein equivalent). Feeding ruminants with poultry waste lowers feeding costs and lessens the impact of pollution on the environment in places where poultry farming occurs [152]. The use of chicken manure as a protein source in feeding ruminants not only reduces environmental problems, but can also replace part of the protein sources as a valuable food material and reduce the total price of the diet [153]. Dried poultry manure is utilized as ruminant feed and can greatly enhance dairy and meat production [154]. Poultry manure begins to breakdown quickly after disposal and emits ammonia, which in excessive amounts can harm the health and production of animals as well as farm employees’ health [155]. Feather meal is rich in amino acids such as serine, proline, glycine, arginine, phenylalanine and threonine [156] which is considered a suitable protein source in the case of proper processing and can be used as a substitute for part of the protein sources in the diet, especially in monogastric animals [157]. Adding fully hydrolyzed feather meal the diet of lactating cows was evaluated to investigate its effects on whole-body protein digestibility and energy utilization. This experiment showed that fully hydrolyzed feather meal in the diet of dairy cows can replace blood meal and even lead to more energy in the diet and the efficiency of energy use for milk production [158]. In the pre-starter (1 to 7 days old) and starter (8 to 21 days old) stages, broiler diets can contain up to 6% feather and blood meal (FBM) [159]. Feathers have a high crude protein content, mainly composed of keratins, simple proteins resistant to proteolytic enzymes in the animal’s stomach and intestines [160]. Table 1 provides chemical composition of some agricultural post-harvesting by-products.

DMCPNDFADFEEAshCaPReference
Soybean meal86.5150.1915.139.981.786.82[161]
Cotton seed meal94.229.050.036.56.14.0[162]
Guar meal95.549.615.16.624.75.1[163]
Sunflower meal88.336.556.635.94.17.2[164]
Olive meal91.377.6161.3752.349.114.060.200.16[165]
Canola meal94.944.027.520.82.46.2[162]
Tomato pomace91.5412.3755.2548.180.254.350.340.20[166]
Apple pomace30.705.6045.3038.04.702.600.110.12[167]
Grape pomace13.824.319.33.1718.9[168]
Lemon pomace32.2617.5231.0125.968.1110.42[169]
Pomegranate pomace33.029.235.3530.616.333.2[170]
Sugarcane bagasse96.12.1885.560.00.842.70[171]
Barley straw93.14.477.37.70.450.24[172]
Oat straw93.34.877.08.80.320.22[172]
Wheat straw93.64.677.07.70.230.14[172]
Rice bran92.015.024.010.71.72[172]
Wheat bran84.8217.5849.8315.135.026.31[161]

Table 1.

Chemical compositions (%DM) of some agricultural post-harvesting by-products used as animal feed.

Using 4% feather meal along with 4% poultry slaughterhouse waste powder in the diet of laying hens increased the feed conversion ratio compared to when the diet contained 5% feather meal and poultry slaughterhouse waste alone [173]. Fish meal is widely used to increase the content of DHA and n-3 unsaturated fatty acids in animal products such as chicken meat and eggs [174]. The traditional processing of fish meal, including cooking, pressing, drying, and grinding, is expensive and has a complex process, and the heat used to dry fish meal leads to a decrease in the digestibility of fish meal [175]. Supplementation with 100 grams of fish meal per cow per day resulted in the highest milk production compared to the control [176]. In another experiment, the use of fish meal at the level of 5% of the diet of cows with frequent estrus can improve the pregnancy condition and increase milk production [177]. Ruminal degradable protein supplement, especially fish powder, has a better effect than urea in increasing the flow of non-ammonia-N (NAN) from the rumen [178].

12. Conclusion

Animal feeding studies identified in the present chapter suggest that agricultural post-harvesting by-products are generally nutritious that can be converted into safe animal feed ingredients using advanced technologies. These by-products can be incorporated into animal diets without compromising animal health and performance. However, animal nutritionists, experts, and farm advisors have the opportunity to assist producers in lowering feed costs in certain regions of the country by incorporating agricultural post-harvest by-products into safe and effective rations. A basic understanding of the availability of the waste stream in certain regions and seasons, along with the knowledge of production and conversion, sanitary aspects in the storage of these by-products are necessary to ensure the absence of mold and bacterial contamination and pathogens.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Bruinsma J, editor. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd; 2003. pp. 158-176
  2. 2. FAO. Animal Nutrition in FAO and Sustainable Development Goals. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2017
  3. 3. Myer RO, Brendemuhl JH, Johnson DD. Evaluation of dehydrated restaurant food waste products as feedstuffs for finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science. 1999;77:685-692. DOI: 10.2527/1999.773685x
  4. 4. Santana-Méridas O, González-Coloma A, Sánchez-Vioque R. Agricultural residues as a source of bioactive natural products. Phytochemistry Reviews. 2012;11:447-466. DOI: 10.1007/s11101-012-9266-0
  5. 5. Bremer VR, Watson AK, Liska AJ, Erickson G, Cassman K, Hanford KJ, et al. Effect of distillers grains moisture and inclusion level in livestock diets on greenhouse gas emissions in the corn-ethanol-livestock life cycle. The Professional Animal Scientist. 2011;27:449-455. DOI: 10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30517-9
  6. 6. García AJ, Esteban MB, Marquez MC, Ramos P. Biodegradable municipal solid waste: Characterization and potential use as animal feedstuffs. Waste Management. 2005;25:780-787. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.01.006
  7. 7. Wadhwa M, Bakshi SP. In: Makkar HPS, editor. Utilization of Fruit and Vegetable Wastes as Livestock Feed and as Substrates for Generation of Other Value-Added Products. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2013
  8. 8. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC
  9. 9. Lau DW, King AJ. Pre-and post-mortem use of grape seed extract in dark poultry meat to inhibit development of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003;51:1602-1607. DOI: 10.1021/jf020740m
  10. 10. Brenes A, Viveros A, Goni I, Centeno C, Sáyago-Ayerdy S, Arija I, et al. Effect of grape pomace concentrate and vitamin E on digestibility of polyphenols and antioxidant activity in chickens. Poultry Science. 2008;87:307-316. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2007-00297
  11. 11. Wang ML, Suo X, Gu JH, Zhang WW, Fang Q , Wang X. In fluence of grape seed proanthocyanidin extract in broiler chickens: Effect on chicken coccidiosis and antioxidant status. Poultry Science. 2008;87:2273-2280. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2008-00077
  12. 12. Sáyago-Ayerdi S, Brenes A, Viveros A, Goñi I. Antioxidative effect of dietary grape pomace concentrate on lipid oxidation of chilled and long-term frozen stored chicken patties. Meat Science. 2009;83:528-533. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.038
  13. 13. Sharma SD, Meeran SM, Katiyar SK. Dietary grape seed proanthocyanidins inhibit UVB-induced oxidative stress and activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases and nuclear factor-κB signaling in in vivo SKH-1 hairless mice. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 2007;6:995-1005. DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0661
  14. 14. Kalli E, Lappa I, Bouchagier P, Tarantilis PA, Skotti E. Novel application and industrial exploitation of winery by-products. Bioresources and Bioprocessing. 2018;5(1):1-21
  15. 15. Bahrami Y, Chekani-Azar S. Some blood biochemical parameters and yield of lambs fed ration contained dried grape pomace. Global Veterinary. 2010;4:571-575
  16. 16. Gómez-Cortés P, Guerra-Rivas C, Gallardo B, Lavin P, Mantecón A, De La Fuente M, et al. Grape pomace in ewes diet: Effects on meat quality and the fatty acid profile of their suckling lambs. Food Research International. 2018;113:36-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.06.052
  17. 17. Brenes A, Viveros A, Chamorro S, Arija I. Use of polyphenol-rich grape by-products in monogastric nutrition. A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2016;211:1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.09.016
  18. 18. Safaei AR, Torbatinejad NM, Mansouri H, Zerehdaran S. Biological effects of grape pomace on performance parameters and blood metabolites of fattening lambs. Animal Science Journal. 2015;28:61-74. DOI: 10.22092/ASJ.2015.102338
  19. 19. Baumgartel T, Kluth H, Epperelein K. A note on digestibility and energy value for sheep of different grape pomace. Small Ruminant Research. 2007;67:302-306. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.11.002
  20. 20. Gil MI, Tomas-Barberan FA, Hess-Pierce B, Holcroft DM, Kader AA. Antioxidant activity of pomegranate juice and its relationship with phenolic composition and processing. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2000;48:4581-4589. DOI: 10.1021/jf000404a
  21. 21. Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS. Utilization of fruit and vegetable wastes as livestock feed and as substrates for generation of other value-added products. Bangkok: Rap Publication; 2013;4:67
  22. 22. Sarica S. Using possibilities of pomegranate juice by-products in animal nutrition. Gazi Osman Paşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi. 2011;28:97-101
  23. 23. Zarei MM, Zeinolabedin BS. Evaluation of physicochemical characteristics of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) fruit during ripening. Fruits. 2011;66:121-129. DOI: 10.1051/fruits/2011021
  24. 24. Adams LS, Seeram NP, Aggarwal BB, Takada Y, Sand D, Heber D. Pomegranate juice, total pomegranate ellagitannins, and punicalagin suppress inflammatory cell signaling in colon cancer cells. Agricultural Food and Chemistry. 2006;54:980-985. DOI: 10.1021/jf052005r
  25. 25. Kara K. Effect of dietary fibre and condensed tannins concentration from various fibrous feedstuffs on in vitro gas production kinetics with rabbit faecal inoculum. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. 2016;25:266-272. DOI: 10.22358/jafs/65563/2016
  26. 26. Fadavi A, Barzegar M, Azizi MH. Determination of fatty acids and total lipid content in oilseed of 25 pomegranates varieties grown in Iran. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2006;19:676-680. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2004.09.002
  27. 27. Shabtay A, Eitam H, Tadmor Y, Orlov A, Meir A, Weinberg P, et al. Nutritive and antioxidative potential of fresh and stored pomegranate industrial byproduct as a novel beef cattle feed. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2008;56:10063-10070. DOI: 10.1021/jf8016095
  28. 28. Viuda-Martos M, Ruiz-Navajas Y, Fernández-López J, PérezÁlvarez JA. Effect of adding citrus waste water, thyme and oregano essential oil on the chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of a bologna sausage. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2009;10:655-660. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.06.001
  29. 29. Emami A, Ganjkhanlou M, Fathi Nasri MH, Zali A, Rashidi L. Pomegranate seed pulp as a novel replacement of dietary cereal grains for kids. Small Ruminant Research. 2015;123:238-245. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.12.001
  30. 30. Modaresi SJ, Fathi Nasri MH, 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. Journal of Dairy Science. 2011;94:4075-4080. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-4069
  31. 31. Shabtay A, Nikbachat M, Zenou A, Yosef E, Arkin O, Sneer O, et al. Effects of adding a concentrated pomegranate extract to the ration of lactating cows on performance and udder health parameters. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2012;175:24-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.04.004
  32. 32. Oliveira RA, Narciso CD, Bisinotto RS, Perdomo MC, Ballou MA, Dreher M, et al. Effects of feeding polyphenols from pomegranate extract on health, growth, nutrient digestion, and immunocompetence of calves. Journal of Dairy Science. 2010;9:4280-4291. DOI: 0.3168/jds.2010-3314
  33. 33. Coelho M, Pereira R, Rodrigues AS, Teixeira JA, Pintado ME. Extraction of tomato by-products’ bioactive compounds using ohmic technology. Food and Bioproducts Processing. 2019;117:329-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2019.08.005
  34. 34. FAOSTAT. 2019. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
  35. 35. Nagarajan J, Ramanan RN, Raghunandan ME, Galanakis CM, Krishnamurthy NP. Carotenoids. In: Galanakis CM, editor. Nutraceutical and Functional Food Components: Effects of Innovative Processing Techniques. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2017. pp. 259-296. ISBN 9780128052570
  36. 36. Poojary MM, Passamonti P. Extraction of lycopene from tomato processing waste: Kinetics and modelling. Food Chemistry. 2015;173:943-950. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.127
  37. 37. Mildner-Szkudlarz S, Bajerska J, Górnaś P, Segliņa D, Pilarska A, Jesionowski T. Physical and bioactive properties of muffins enriched with raspberry and cranberry pomace powder: A promising application of fruit by-products rich in biocompounds. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2016;71:165-173. DOI: 10.1007/s11130-016-0539-4
  38. 38. Albanese D, Adiletta G, D'Acunto M, Cinquanta L, Di Matteo M. Tomato peel drying and carotenoids stability of the extracts. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014;49:2458-2463. DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.12602
  39. 39. Lu S, Chen S, Li H, Paengkoum S, Taethaisong N, Meethip W, et al. Sustainable valorization of tomato pomace (Lycopersicon esculentum) in animal nutrition: A review. Animals. 2022;12:3294. DOI: 10.3390/ani12233294
  40. 40. Pinela J, Montoya C, Carvalho AM, Martins V, Rocha F, Barata AM, et al. Phenolic composition and antioxidant properties of ex-situ conserved tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) germplasm. Food Research International. 2019;125:108545. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108545
  41. 41. Belovi CM, Torbica A, Lijakovic IP, Tomic J, Loncarevic I, Petrovic J. Tomato pomace powder as a raw material for ketchup production. Food. Bioscience. 2018;26:193-199. DOI: 10.1016/j.fbio.2018.10.013
  42. 42. Álvarez S, Méndez P, Martínez-Fernández A. Fermentative and nutritive quality of banana by-product silage for goats. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2015;43:396-401. DOI: 10.1080/09712119.2014.978782
  43. 43. Yuangklang C, Vasupen K, Wongsuthavas S, Panyakaew P, Alhaidary A, Mohamed HE, et al. Growth performance in beef cattle fed rations containing dried tomato pomace. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 2010;9:2261-2264
  44. 44. Pardo G, Martin-Garcia I, Arco A, Yañez-Ruiz DR, Moral R, Del Prado A. Greenhouse-gas mitigation potential of agro-industrial by-products in the diet of dairy goats in Spain: A life-cycle perspective. Animal Production Science. 2016;56:646-654. DOI: 10.1071/AN15620
  45. 45. Denek N, Can A. Feeding value of wet tomato pomace ensiled with wheat straw and wheat grain for Awassi sheep. Small Ruminant Research. 2006;65:260-265. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.06.024
  46. 46. Tuoxunjiang H, Yimamu A, Li XQ , Maimaiti R, Wang YL. Effect of ensiled tomato pomace on performance and antioxidant status in the peripartum dairy cow. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. 2020;29:105-114. DOI: 10.22358/jafs/124049/2020
  47. 47. So S, Cherdthong A, Uriyapongson S. Potential use of tomato pomace as ruminants diet − a review. Bioscience Research. 2019;16:1538-1548
  48. 48. Ziaei N, Molaei S. Evaluation of nutrient digestibility of wet tomato pomace ensiled with wheat straw compared to alfalfa hay in Kermani sheep. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 2010;9:771-773
  49. 49. Omar HAA, Abdel-Magid SS. Incorporation of dried tomato pomace in growing sheep rations. Global Veterinaria. 2015;14:1-16. DOI: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2015.14.01.9256
  50. 50. Soto E, Khelil H, Carro M, Yanez-Ruiz D, Molina-Alcaide E. Use of tomato and cucumber waste fruits in goat diets: Effects on rumen fermentation and microbial communities in batch and continuous cultures. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2015;153:343-352. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859614000380
  51. 51. Abdullahzadeh F. The effect of tomato pomace on carcass traits, blood metabolites and fleece characteristic of growing Markhoz goat. Journal of Animal Science. 2012;8:848-852
  52. 52. Hosseini-Vashan S, Golian A, Yaghobfar A. Growth, immune, antioxidant, and bone responses of heat stress-exposed broilers fed diets supplemented with tomato pomace. International Journal of Biometeorology. 2016;60:1183-1192. DOI: 10.1007/s00484-015-1112-9
  53. 53. Reda FM, Madkour M, Abd El-Azeem N, Aboelazab O, Ahmed SY, Alagawany M. Tomato pomace as a nontraditional feedstuff: Productive and reproductive performance, digestive enzymes, blood metabolites, and the deposition of carotenoids into egg yolk in quail breeders. Poultry Science. 2022;101:101730. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101730
  54. 54. Bakshi MP, Kaur J, Wadhwa M. Nutritional evaluation of sun dried tomato pomace as livestock feed. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 2012;29:6-19
  55. 55. McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJ. The Biochemistry of Silage. Shedfield, UK: Chalcombe Publications; 1991. Available from: https://www.chalcombe.co.uk/contact.htm
  56. 56. Solhjoo A, Amiri GZ. The effect of using different levels fodder beet silage on performance and carcass characteristics of gray Shirazi fattening lambs. Research on Animal Production (Scientific and Research). 2021;2:74-81. DOI: 20.1001.1.22518622.1400.12.33.3.8
  57. 57. Donosă RE. The nutritive value of fodder beet in some dairy cow farms from Verșeni village (Iași County). Lucrări Științifice, Universitatea de Stiinte Agricole Și Medicină Veterinară" Ion Ionescu de la Brad" Iași. Seria Agronomie. 2010;53:207-210
  58. 58. Bodas R, Giráldez FJ, López S, Rodríguez AB, Mantecón AR. Inclusion of sugar beet pulp in cereal-based diets for fattening lambs. Small Ruminant Research. 2007;71:250-254. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.07.006
  59. 59. Eriksson T, Ciszuk P, Burstedt E. Proportions of potatoes and fodder beets selected by dairy cows and the effects of feed choice on nitrogen metabolism. Livestock Science. 2009;126:168-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.06.018
  60. 60. Schmidt S, Steingass H, Jungbluth T, Drochner W. Sugar beet mash silage as a component of a total-mixedration for dairy cows – Effects on parameters of digestion and animal performance. Archives of Animal Nutrition. 2001;54:47-59. DOI: 10.1080/17450390109381965
  61. 61. Boskou D, Blekas G, Tsimidou M. History and characteristics of the olive tree. In: Olive Oil Chemistry and Technology. England: Taylor & Francis; 1996
  62. 62. Dal Bosco A, Castellini C, Cardinali R, Mourvaki E, Moscati L, Battistacci L, et al. Olive cake dietary supplementation in rabbit: Immune and oxidative status. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2007;6:713-715. DOI: 10.4081/ijas.2007.1s.761
  63. 63. Al-Mughrabi KI, Shahrour W, Anfoka GH, Aburaj TA. Antifungal activity of olive cake extracts. Phytopathologia Mediterranea. 2001;40:1000-1005
  64. 64. Serafini A, Tonetto GM. Production of fatty acid methyl esters from an olive oil industry waste. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2019;36:285-297. DOI: 10.1590/ 0104-6632.20190361s20170535
  65. 65. Serra A, Conte G, Giovannetti M, Casarosa L, Agnolucci M, Ciucci F, et al. Olive pomace in diet limits lipid peroxidation of sausages from cinta senese swine. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 2018;120:1700236
  66. 66. Bedford MR. The use of NSPases for improving efficiency of nutrient extraction from corn for poultry. Poultry Bulletin. 2009;11:91-114
  67. 67. Alcaide EM, Ruiz DY, Moumen A, Garcıa IM. Chemical composition and nitrogen availability for goats and sheep of some olive by-products. Small Ruminant Research. 2003;49:329-336. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00148-2
  68. 68. Neifar M, Jaouani A, Ayari A, Abid O, Salem HB, Boudabous A, et al. Improving the nutritive value of olive cake by solid state cultivation of the medicinal mushroom Fomes fomentarius. Chemosphere. 2013;91(1):110-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.12.015
  69. 69. Fadel M, El-Ghonemy DH. Biological fungal treatment of olive cake for better utilization in ruminants nutrition in Egypt. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture. 2015;4:261-271. DOI: 10.1007/s4009 3-015-0105-3
  70. 70. Zangiabadi H, Torki M. The effect of a β-mannanase-based enzyme on growth performance and humoral immune response of broiler chickens fed diets containing graded levels of whole dates. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2010;42:1209-1217. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-010-9550-1
  71. 71. Taklimi SM, Ghahri H, Pour-Reza J, Fazaeli H, Lotfollahian H. Investigation into the possible use of olive pulp in commercial layer diets. British Poultry Science. 1999;40:40-41. DOI: 10.1080/00071669986765
  72. 72. Rabayaa E, Abo Omar JM, Othman RA. Utilization of olive pulp in broiler rations. An-Najah University Journal for Research-Natural Sciences. 2001;15:133-144
  73. 73. Sarica S, Urkmez D. The use of grape seed-, olive leaf-and pomegranate peel-extracts as alternative natural antimicrobial feed additives in broiler diets. European Journal of Poultry Science. 2016;80:1-13. DOI: 10.1399/ eps.2016.121
  74. 74. Leskovec J, Levart A, Žgur S, Jordan D, Pirman T, Salobir J, et al. Effects of olive leaf and marigold extracts on the utilization of nutrients and on bone mineralization using two different oil sources in broilers. The Journal of Poultry Science. 2018;55:17-27. DOI: 10.2141/jpsa.0170059
  75. 75. Musacchi S, Serra S. Apple fruit quality: Overview on pre-harvest factors. Scientia Horticulturae. 2018;234:409-430. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.057
  76. 76. Pirmohammadi R, Rouzbehan Y, Rezayazdi K, Zahedifar M. Chemical composition, digestibility and in situ degradability of dried and ensiled apple pomace and maize silage. Small Ruminant Research. 2006;66:150-155. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.07.054
  77. 77. Oreopoulou V, Tzia C. Utilization of plant by-products for the recovery of proteins, dietary fibers, antioxidants, and colorants. In: Utilization of by-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry. US: Springer; 2007. pp. 209-232. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35766-9_11
  78. 78. Yuan Y, Yue T, Bai X, Zhang H. Fractionation and anti-inflammatory effects of polyphenolenriched extracts from apple pomace. Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology. 2012;7:28-32. DOI: 10.3329/bjp.v7i1.10194
  79. 79. Guil-Guerrero JL, Ramos L, Moreno C, Zúñiga-Paredes JC, Carlosama-Yépez M, Ruales P. Plant-food by-products to improve farm-animal health. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2016;220:121-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.016
  80. 80. Beigh YA, Ganai AM, Ahmad HA. Utilisation of apple pomace as livetock feed: A review. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants (The). 2015;21:165-179. DOI: 10.5958/0973-9718.2015.00054.9
  81. 81. Alarcon-Rojo AD, Lucero V, Carrillo-Lopez L, Janacua H. Use of apple pomace in animal feed as an antioxidant of meat. South African Journal of Animal Science. 2019;49:131-139. DOI: 10.4314/sajas.v49i1.15
  82. 82. Xiong ML, Wu XJ, Zhu XF, Zhang WJ. Effects of different apple pomace levels on lactation performance, nutrient apparent digestibility, serum biochemical indices and the rumen pH of Guanzhong dairy goats. Acta Prataculturae Sinica. 2021;30:81-88. DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020162
  83. 83. Diao QY, Tu Y, Gao F, Cao B, Zhang X, Xi X, et al. Effects of fermented apple residues on milk performance and immunity of dairy cows. China Dairy Cattle. 2003;5:21-24
  84. 84. Kafilzadeh F, Taasoli G. Effects of dried and ensiled apple pomace from puree making on performance of finishing lambs. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2008;11:294-297
  85. 85. Boldaji ZT, Mohammadabadi T, Sari M, Chaji M. Study of the effect of dried apple pomace on digestibility, rumination microbiol fermentation characteristic and blood glucose and urea of Arabi sheep. Journal of Veterinary Research. 2016;71:255-262
  86. 86. Allen DM, Grant RJ. Interactions between forage and wet corn gluten feed as sources of fiber in diets for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2000;83:322-331
  87. 87. Suárez B, Álvarez ÁL, García YD, del Barrio G, Lobo AP, Parra F. Phenolic profiles, antioxidant activity and in vitro antiviral properties of apple pomace. Food Chemistry. 2010;120:339-342. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.09.073
  88. 88. Vasta V, Nudda A, Cannas A, Lanza M, Priolo A. Alternative feed resources and their effects on the quality of meat and milk from small ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2008;147:223-246. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.09.020
  89. 89. Vasta V, Makkar HP, Mele M, Priolo A. Ruminal biohydrogenation as affected by tannins in vitro. The British Journal of Nutrition. 2008;102:82-92. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114508137898
  90. 90. Migwi PK, Gallagher JR, Van Barneveld RJ. The nutritive value of citrus pulp ensiled with wheat straw and poultry litter for sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2001;41:1143-1148. DOI: 10.1071/EA00080
  91. 91. Vatandoost M. Investigation of different levels of sugar beet pulp and citrus residue on productive performance of Baluchi lambs. Research on Animal Production (Scientific and Research). 2019;10:16-24. DOI: 10.29252/rap.10.25.16
  92. 92. Tańska M, Roszkowska B, Czaplicki S, Borowska EJ, Bojarska J, Dąbrowska A. Effect of fruit pomace addition on shortbread cookies to improve their physical and nutritional values. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2016;71:307-313. DOI: 10.1007/s11130-016-0561-6
  93. 93. Besharati M, Palangi V, Nemati Z, Safari R, Salem AZM. Valorization of dietary lemon pomace waste to enhance lucerne silage composition and quality characteristics, and ruminal biogas production and fermentation. Research Square. 2021;1-12. DOI: 10.21203/ rs.3.rs-392203/v1
  94. 94. Conti C, Bacenetti J, Tedesco DE. Earthworms for feed production from vegetable waste: Environmental impact assessment. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal. 2019;18:2117-2122
  95. 95. Rivin J, Miller Z, Matel O. Using Food Waste as Livestock Feed. United States: University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents and University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension; 2012
  96. 96. Das NG, Huque KS, Amanullah SM, Makkar HP. Feeding of processed vegetable wastes to bulls and its potential environmental benefit. Animal Nutrition. 2019;5:87-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.002
  97. 97. Sahoo A, Chaturvedi OH, Thirumurgan P, Naqvi SMK. Cactus: Ensuring Round the Year Feed Supply. National Innovation in Climate Resilient Agriculture. Avikanagar: Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute; 2017. p. 26
  98. 98. Angulo J, Mahecha L, Yepes SA, Yepes AM, Bustamante G, Jaramillo H, et al. Nutritional evaluation of fruit and vegetable waste as feedstuff for diets of lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Environmental Management. 2012;95:S210-S214. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.050
  99. 99. Rizal Y, Mahata ME, Andriani M, Wu G. Utilization of juice wastes as corn replacement in the broiler diet. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2010;9:886-889
  100. 100. Min BR, Attwood GT, Reilly K, Sun W, Peters JS, Barry TN, et al. Lotus corniculatus condensed tannins decrease in vivo populations of proteolytic bacteria and affect nitrogen metabolism in the rumen of sheep. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2002;48:911-921
  101. 101. Nawirska A, Kwaśniewska M. Dietary fibre fractions from fruit and vegetable processing waste. Food Chemistry. 2005;91:221-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.10.005
  102. 102. Ncobela CN, Kanengoni AT, Hlatini VA, Thomas RS, Chimonyo M. A review of the utility of potato by-products as a feed resource for smallholder pig production. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2017;227:107-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.02.008
  103. 103. Chiellini E, Cinelli P, Chiellini F, Imam SH. Environmentally degradable bio‐based polymeric blends and composites. Macromolecular Bioscience. 2004;4:218-231. DOI: 10.1002/mabi.200300126
  104. 104. Nelson M. Utilization and application of wet potato processing coproducts for finishing cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 2010;88:E133-E142. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-2502
  105. 105. Liang S, McDonald AG, Coats ER. Lactic acid production with undefined mixed culture fermentation of potato peel waste. Waste Management. 2014;34:2022-2027. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.009
  106. 106. Jurjanz S, Colin-Schoellen O, Gardeur JN, Laurent F. Alteration of milk fat by variation in the source and amount of starch in a total mixed diet fed to dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 1998;81:2924-2933
  107. 107. Svihus B, Uhlen AK, Harstad OM. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2005;122:303-320. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.02.025
  108. 108. Salehi SA, Lashkari SA, Abbasi RE, Kamangar H. Nutrient digestibility and chemical composition of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) vine as alternative forage in ruminant diets. Agricultural communications. 2014;2:63-66
  109. 109. Montoya NF, Pino ID, Correa HJ. Evaluación de la suplementación con papa (Solanum tuberosum) durante la lactancia en vacas Holstein. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 2004;17:241-249
  110. 110. Khan AD. Making rice bran a cereals alternative. Feed International June. 2004;June:18-19
  111. 111. Samli HE. Using rice bran in laying hen diets. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 2006;7:137-140. DOI: 10.5513/jcea.v7i1.365
  112. 112. Anderson T, Hoffman P. Nutrient composition of straw used in dairy cattle diets. Focus Forage. 2006;1:1-3
  113. 113. Campling RC. Processing cereal grains for cattle—A review. Livestock Production Science. 1991;28:223-234. DOI: 10.1016/0301-6226(91)90144-F
  114. 114. Kakkar VK, Dhanda S. Comparative evaluation of wheat and paddy straws for mushroom production and feeding residual straws to ruminants. Bioresource Technology. 1998;66:175-177. DOI: 10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00098-9
  115. 115. Okano K, Ohkoshi N, Nishiyama A, Usagawa T, Kitagawa M. Improving the nutritive value of madake bamboo, Phyllostachys bambusoides, for ruminants by culturing with the white-rot fungus Ceriporiopsis subvermispora. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2009;152:278-285. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.04.021
  116. 116. Azizi-Shotorkhoft A, Mohammadabadi T, Motamedi H, Chaji M, Fazaeli H. Isolation and identification of termite gut symbiotic bacteria with lignocellulose-degrading potential, and their effects on the nutritive value for ruminants of some by-products. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2016;221:234-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.04.016
  117. 117. McDonald P, Edwards R, Greenhalgh J, Morgan C, Sinclair L, Wilkinson R. Animal Nutrition. 7th ed. London, England, UK: Longman Group UK Ltd.; 2010. p. 693
  118. 118. Parnian F, Taghizadeh A. Evaluation of microwave irradiation effects on nutritive value of broom sorghum grain using an in vitro gas production technique. In: Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science. Vol. 2009. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2009. pp. 182-182. DOI: 10.1017/S1752756200030210
  119. 119. Adesogan AT, Arriola KG, Jiang Y, Oyebade A, Paula EM, Pech-Cervantes AA, et al. Symposium review: Technologies for improving fiber utilization. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;102:5726-5755. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2018-15334
  120. 120. Bachmann M, Martens SD, Le Brech Y, Kervern G, Bayreuther R, Steinhöfel O, et al. Physicochemical characterisation of barley straw treated with sodium hydroxide or urea and its digestibility and in vitro fermentability in ruminants. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:20530. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24738-w
  121. 121. Sindelar AJ, Coulter JA, Lamb JA, Vetsch JA. Agronomic responses of continuous corn to Stover, tillage, and nitrogen management. Agronomy Journal. 2013;105:1498-1506. DOI: 10.2134/agronj2013.0181
  122. 122. Zinn RA, Barreras A, Corona L, Owens FN, Plascencia A. Comparative effects of processing methods on the feeding value of maize in feedlot cattle. Nutrition Research Reviews. 2011;24:183-190. DOI: 10.1017/S0954422411000096
  123. 123. Sadeghi AA, Shawrang P. Effects of microwave irradiation on ruminal protein and starch degradation of corn grain. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2006;127:113-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.07.004
  124. 124. Parnian-khajehdizaj F, Taghizadeh A, Nobari BB. Effect of feeding microwave irradiated sorghum grain on nutrient utilization, rumen fermentation and serum metabolites in sheep. Livestock Science. 2014;167:161-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.06.004
  125. 125. Gunun N, Wanapat M, Gunun P, Cherdthong A, Khejornsart P, Kang S. Effect of treating sugarcane bagasse with urea and calcium hydroxide on feed intake, digestibility, and rumen fermentation in beef cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2016;48:1123-1128. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-016-1061-2
  126. 126. Leme PR, Silva SI, Pereira AS, Putrino SM, Lanna DP, Nogueira Filho JC. Sugarcane bagasse utilization in diets with high-proportion of concentrated for Nelore cattle in the feedlot. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2003;32:1786-1791
  127. 127. So S, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M. Improving sugarcane bagasse quality as ruminant feed with lactobacillus, cellulase, and molasses. Journal of Animal Science and Technology. 2020;62:648. DOI: 10.5187/jast.2020.62.5.648
  128. 128. Shakeri P, Riasi A, Alikhani M, Fazaeli H, Ghorbani GR. Effects of feeding pistachio by‐products silage on growth performance, serum metabolites and urine characteristics in Holstein male calves. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2013;97:1022-1029
  129. 129. Ghaffari MH, Tahmasbi AM, Khorvash M, Naserian AA, Ghaffari AH, Valizadeh H. Effects of pistachio by-products in replacement of alfalfa hay on populations of rumen bacteria involved in biohydrogenation and fermentative parameters in the rumen of sheep. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2014;98:578-586. DOI: 10.1111/jpn.12120
  130. 130. SoltaniNezhad B, Dayani O, Khezri A, Tahmasbi R. Performance and carcass characteristics in fattening lambs feed diets with different levels of pistachio by-products silage with wasted date. Small Ruminant Research. 2016;137:177-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2016.03.015
  131. 131. Ferguson JD. Food residue, loss and waste as animal feed. In: Encyclopaedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials. Vol. 5. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020. pp. 395-407
  132. 132. Spang ES, Moreno LC, Pace SA, Achmon Y, Donis-Gonzalez I, Gosliner WA, et al. Food loss and waste: Measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2019;44:117-156. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033228
  133. 133. FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste–Extent, Causes and Prevention. Rome (Italy): The Food and Agriculture Organization; 2011
  134. 134. Dou Z, Toth JD, Westendorf ML. Food waste for livestock feeding: Feasibility, safety, and sustainability implications. Global Food Security. 2018;17:154-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.12.003
  135. 135. Georganas A, Giamouri E, Pappas AC, Papadomichelakis G, Galliou F, Manios T, et al. Bioactive compounds in food waste: A review on the transformation of food waste to animal feed. Food. 2020;9:291. DOI: 10.3390/foods9030291
  136. 136. Ominski K, McAllister T, Stanford K, Mengistu G, Kebebe EG, Omonijo F, et al. Utilization of by-products and food waste in livestock production systems: A Canadian perspective. Animal Frontiers. 2021;11:55-63. DOI: 10.1093/af/vfab004
  137. 137. Fisgativa H, Tremier A, Dabert P. Characterizing the variability of food waste quality: A need for efficient valorisation through anaerobic digestion. Waste Management. 2016;50:264-274. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.041
  138. 138. Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Gianico A, Pagliaccia P. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresource Technology. 2018;248:237-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
  139. 139. Westendorf ML, Dong ZC, Schoknecht PA. Recycled cafeteria food waste as a feed for swine: Nutrient content, digestibility, growth, and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science. 1998;76:2976-2983. DOI: 10.2527/1998.76122976x
  140. 140. Paek BH, Kang SW, Cho YM, Cho WM, Yang CJ, Yun SG. Effects of substituting concentrate with dried leftover food on growth and carcass characteristics of Hanwoo steers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2005;18:209-213
  141. 141. Kim MH, Kim JW. Comparison through a LCA evaluation analysis of food waste disposal options from the perspective of global warming and resource recovery. The Science of the Total Environment. 2010;408:3998-4006. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.04.049
  142. 142. Moon JS, Kwon IK, Chae BJ. Effects of wet feeding of diets with or without food waste on growth performance and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs. Asian-Australians. Journal of Animal Science. 2004;17:504-510
  143. 143. Kwak WS, Kang JS. Effect of feeding food waste-broiler litter and bakery byproduct mixture to pigs. Bioresource Technology. 2006;97:243-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.02.008
  144. 144. Murray Martínez R, Cerezal Mezquita P, Bermúdez P, Bugueño MR. Use of food wastes for the production of lactic silage. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2012;5:118-126. DOI: 10.1590/S1516-89132012000100015
  145. 145. Alagawany M, El-Saadony MT, El-Rayes TK, Madkour M, Loschi AR, Di Cerbo A, et al. Evaluation of dried tomato pomace as a non‐conventional feed: Its effect on growth, nutrients digestibility, digestive enzyme, blood chemistry and intestinal microbiota of growing quails. Food and Energy Security. 2022;11:e373. DOI: 10.1002/fes3.373
  146. 146. Makinde O, Sonaiya B, Adeyeye S. Conversion of abattoir wastes into livestock feed: Chemical composition of sun-dried rumen content blood meal and its effect on performance of broiler chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2008;6:875-882
  147. 147. Ahmad MH, Miah MY, Ali MA, Hossain MA. Effect of different protein concentrates replacement of fish meal on the performance of broiler. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2006;5:959-963
  148. 148. Hasni MS, Sahito HA, Memon MA, Sanjrani MI, Gopang MA, Soomro NA. Effect of feeding various levels of feather meal as a replacement of fish meal on the growth of broiler. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research. 2014;3:505-511
  149. 149. Esonu BO, Ogbonna UD, Anyanwu GA, Emenalom OO, Uchegbu MC, Etuk EB, et al. Evaluation of performance, organ characteristics and economic analysis of broiler finisher fed dried rumen digesta. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2006;5:1116-1118
  150. 150. Ravindran V, Hendriks WH, Camden BJ, Thomas DV, Morel PC, Butts CA. Amino acid digestibility of meat and bone meals for broiler chickens. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2002;53:1257-1264. DOI: 10.1071/AR02055
  151. 151. Davis TM, Parsons CM, Utterback PL, Kirstein D. Evaluation of the pepsin digestibility assay for predicting amino acid digestibility of meat and bone meals. Poultry Science. 2015;94:1003-1008
  152. 152. Saleh HM, Elwan KM, El-Fouly HA, Ibrahim II Salama AM, Elashry MA. The use of poultry waste as a dietary supplement for ruminants. Egyptian Journal of Nutrition and Feeds. 2002;3:1-8
  153. 153. Talib NH, Ahmed FA. Performance and carcass characteristics of intact zebu bulls fed different levels of deep stacked poultry litter. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 2008;7:1467-1473
  154. 154. Alam MS, Khan MJ, Akbar MA, Kamruzzaman M. Broiler litter and layer manure in the diet of growing bull calves. Bangladesh Veterinarian. 2008;25:62-67. DOI: 10.3329/bvet.v25i2.4619
  155. 155. Zhang W, Lau A. Reducing ammonia emission from poultry manure composting via struvite formation. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology: International Research in Process, Environmental & Clean Technology. 2007;82:598-602. DOI: 10.1002/jctb.1701
  156. 156. Pfeuti G, Osborne V, Shoveller AK, Ignatz EH, Bureau DP. Development of a novel enzymatic pretreatment for improving the digestibility of protein in feather meal. Agricultural Engineering. 2019;1:475-484. DOI: 10.3390/agriengineering1040034
  157. 157. Sarmwatanakul A, Bamrongtum B. Aquarium Fish Nutrition. Bangkok, Thailand: Ornament Fish Research and Public Aquarium; 2000. p. 1
  158. 158. Morris DL, Judy JV, Kononoff PJ. Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming diets with increasing inclusion of hydrolyzed feather meal. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020;103:4206-4217. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2019-17762
  159. 159. Xavier SA, Stringhini JH, Brito AB, Andrade MA, Café MB, Leandro NS. Feather and blood meal in pre-starter and starter diets for broilers. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2011;40:1745-1752. DOI: 10.1590/S1516- 35982011000800018
  160. 160. da Silva Scapim MR, Loures EG, Rostagno H, Cecon PR, Scapim CR. Avaliação nutricional da farinha de penas e de sangue para frangos de corte submetida a diferentes tratamentos térmicos. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences. 2003;25:91-98. DOI: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v25i1.2104
  161. 161. 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. Grassland Science. 2020;66:124-131
  162. 162. Maesoomi SM, Ghorbani GR, Alikhani M, Nikkhah A. Canola meal as a substitute for cottonseed meal in diet of midlactation Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;89:1673-1677. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72234-2
  163. 163. Narimani S, Taghizadeh A, Sis NM, Parnian F, Nobari BB. Effects of compound treatment of exogenous feed enzymes and microwave irradiation on in vitro ruminal fermentation and intestinal digestion of guar meal. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2014;84:436-341
  164. 164. Alcaide EM, Ruiz DY, Moumen A, Garcıa AM. Ruminal degradability and in vitro intestinal digestibility of sunflower meal and in vitro digestibility of olive by-products supplemented with urea or sunflower meal: Comparison between goats and sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2003;110:3-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.08.002
  165. 165. Ashraf A, Sharma RK, Rastogi A. Effect of lime treatment of olive meal on in vitro utilization of total mixed ration containing olive meal as partial maize replacer. Veterinary World. 2013;6:440-443. DOI: 10.5455/vetworld.2013.440-443
  166. 166. Yang P, Fan Y, Zhu M, Yang Y, Ma Y. Energy content, nutrient digestibility coefficient, growth performance and serum parameters of pigs fed diets containing tomato pomace. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2018;46:1483-1489. DOI: 10.1080/09712119.2018.1546181
  167. 167. Abdollahzadeh F, Pirmohammadi R, Fatehi F, Bernousi I. Effect of feeding ensiled mixed tomato and apple pomace on performance of Holstein dairy cows. Slovak Journal of Animal Science. 2010;43:31-35
  168. 168. Guerra-Rivas C, Gallardo B, Mantecón ÁR, del Álamo-Sanza M, Manso T. Evaluation of grape pomace from red wine by-product as feed for sheep. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2017;97:1885-1893. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.7991
  169. 169. Besharati M, Palangi V, Salem AZ, De Palo P, Lorenzo JM, Maggiolino A. Substitution of raw lucerne with raw citrus lemon by-product in silage: In vitro apparent digestibility and gas production. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2022;9:1672. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1006581
  170. 170. Kara K, Guclu BK, Baytok E, Aktug E, Oguz FK, Kamalak A. Atalay AI. Investigation in terms of digestive values, silages quality and nutrient content of the using pomegranate pomace in the ensiling of apple pomace with high moisture contents. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2018; 46: 1233-1241.
  171. 171. Ahmed MH, Babiker SA, Fadel Elseed AEMA, Mohammed AM. Effect of urea-treatment on nutritive value of sugarcane bagasse. ARPN Journal of Science and Technology. 2013;3:834-838
  172. 172. Shaver R, Hoffman P. Use of straw in dairy cattle diets. Focus on Forage. 2010;12(2)
  173. 173. Senkoylu N, Samli HE, Akyurek H, Agma A, Yasar S. Performance and egg characteristics of laying hens fed diets incorporated with poultry by-product and feather meals. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2005;14:542-247. DOI: 10.1093/japr/14.3.542
  174. 174. Howe PR, Downing JA, Grenyer BF, Grigonis‐Deane EM, Bryden WL. Tuna fishmeal as a source of DHA for n− 3 PUFA enrichment of pork, chicken, and eggs. Lipids 2002; 37: 1067-1076. DOI: 10.1007/s11745-002-1002-3
  175. 175. Faid M, Zouiten A, Elmarrakchi A, Achkari-Begdouri A. Biotransformation of fish waste into a stable feed ingredient. Food Chemistry. 1997;60:13-18. DOI: 10.1016/S0308-8146(96)00291-9
  176. 176. Asghedom G, Austbo D, Kjos NP. Effect of fishmeal supplmementation on milk yield of Holstein-Friesian cows in Eritrea. Tanzania Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;8:39-50
  177. 177. Kamali Dehkordi F, Amanlou H, Sadeghi BN. The effect of replacement soybean meal with fish meal on milk production, milk composition and reproductive performance in repeat breeder Holstein cows. Iranian Journal of animal Science. 2022;52:271-283. DOI: 10.22059/ijas.2021.329251.653844
  178. 178. Brito AF, Broderick GA, Reynal SM. Effects of different protein supplements on omasal nutrient flow and microbial protein synthesis in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;90:1828-1841. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2006-559

Written By

Kian Sadeghi, Farhad Parnian-khajehdizaj, Mahdi Ganjkhanlou, Reza Faraji and Zahra Abdollahi

Submitted: 28 February 2023 Reviewed: 06 April 2023 Published: 23 June 2023