Next Article in Journal
Investigation of Lethal Concurrent Outbreak of Chlamydiosis and Pigeon Circovirus in a Zoo
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Fresh Citrus Pulp Supplementation on Animal Performance and Meat Quality of Feedlot Steers
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Silver Nanoparticles on Proliferation and Apoptosis in Granulosa Cells of Chicken Preovulatory Follicles: An In Vitro Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nutritive Value, In Vitro Fermentation, and Methane Production of Cactus Cladodes, Sugarcane Bagasse, and Urea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/ani11061653
animals-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:
Article

Solid State Fermentation as a Tool to Stabilize and Improve Nutritive Value of Fruit and Vegetable Discards: Effect on Nutritional Composition, In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Organic Matter Digestibility

by
Jone Ibarruri
1,*,
Idoia Goiri
2,
Marta Cebrián
1 and
Aser García-Rodríguez
2
1
AZTI, Food Research, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia, Astondo Bidea, Edificio 609, 48160 Derio, Spain
2
NEIKER—Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Campus Agroalimentario de Arkaute s/n, 01192 Arkaute, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(6), 1653; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061653
Submission received: 29 March 2021 / Revised: 18 May 2021 / Accepted: 30 May 2021 / Published: 2 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Nutritive Value and Valorization of New Feedstuffs for Ruminant Nutrition)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

A huge quantity of fruits and vegetables are wasted every year, having a negative impact in both the economy and the environment. Valorizing them as animals’ feeds would contribute to reduce feeding cost and, at the same time, would be in the interest of prevention of resource wastage and better economy of the processing plants. The aim of this study was, on the one side, to transform fruit and vegetable discards using solid state fermentation (SSF) to a stabilized product enriched in protein and, on the other side, to evaluate its suitability for ruminants feeding by determining the in vitro organic matter digestibility, fermentation characteristics and methane production of the control and the fermented product. As a result, it was found that SSF reduced the organic matter and reducing sugar content of the fermented product, while crude protein and fiber fractions were increased. In conclusion, SSF led to a stabilized feed ingredient enriched in protein, but at the expense of digestibility reduction.

Abstract

This research aimed to evaluate in vitro organic matter digestibility, fermentation characteristics and methane production of fruit and vegetable discards processed by solid state fermentation (SSF) by Rhizopus sp. Mixtures were composed of approximately 28% citric fruits, 35% other fruits and 37% vegetables. Fruit and vegetables were processed and fermented to obtain a stabilized product. Nutritional characterization and in vitro ruminal fermentation tests were performed to determine the effect of fungal bioconversion on digestibility, end products and gas production kinetics. Results indicate that SSF reduced organic matter and reducing sugars, while it increased crude protein and neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent insoluble protein. The in vitro gas production showed that SSF led to a reduction of the organic matter digestibility (p < 0.001), short chain fatty acids (SCFA; p = 0.003) and CH4 (p = 0.002). SSF reduced the gas production from the insoluble fraction (p = 0.001), without modifying the production rate (p = 0.676) or the lag time (p = 0.574). Regarding SCFA profile, SSF increased acetic (p = 0.020) and decreased propionic (p = 0.004) and butyric (p = 0.006) acids proportions, increasing acetic to propionic (p = 0.008) and acetic plus butyric to propionic (p = 0.011) ratios. SSF succeeded in obtaining a stabilized material enriched in protein, but at the expense of a reduction of protein availability and organic matter digestibility. These changes should be considered before including them in a ruminant’s rations.

1. Introduction

One of the main objectives set by the European Union (EU) is obtaining a sustainable food chain where reducing food waste and producing new sustainable food and feed sources are two key aspects. It is estimated that around 20–30% of produced food in the EU is wasted, while 5 million tons of raw food is used in animal feed with an upward trend to 7 million tons for 2025 [1]. In addition, the demand for animal feed is increasing in addition to the need for new protein sources. Imported soybean meal is the main protein source used in animal feeding in the EU, which increases the environmental impact on the sector.
On the other hand, the feed sector is being challenged because of an increase in the demand for livestock animal feed; coupled with land, soil and water shortage; competition between crops for food or biofuel production and climate change. In this context, one of the keys to developing a sustainable livestock system is the reduction of food waste, such as including it as new resources for animal feed that do not compete with human food.
Fruit and vegetables are the greatest fraction of wasted food [2,3], generating more than 12 million tons of discards per year in Europe [4]. The major obstacles to their use as quality animal feed are the low nutritional value of some of these by-products (mainly due to low protein content), their high humidity and the possible presence of mycotoxins. Therefore, it is essential to implement technologies to account for these aspects, especially to improve the protein content, in a sustainable, economically feasible and controlled way [5,6].
In this context, the use of solid state fermentation (SSF) to enrich fruit and vegetable discards to obtain an alternative ingredient for feed manufacturers could be an exceptional example of resource efficiency in the circular economy of the EU. Previous studies on SSF of several food industry by-products, including fruit and vegetables, observed important increases in the protein content [7,8], while releasing phenolic compounds with antioxidant activity [9,10,11]. Among fungi, Rhizopus is one of the most interesting fungal genus for SSF, due to its simple nutritional requirements and growing conditions [12] and the high variety of enzymes that it can produce [13]. In addition, SSF is described as a simple treatment for digestibility improvement [14,15]. It has been successfully applied for ruminal digestibility improvement in fiber rich by-products, like corn stovers [16,17,18], wheat straw [19], camelia seed [20] and corn straw [21], among others. During the fermentation of these substrates, fungi improve fermented products’ digestibility due to their ability to release several enzymes (amylases, xylases, celullases), which degrade plant cell walls [22,23], allowing the rumen microorganisms to access the polysaccharides [18].
On the contrary, few studies have been carried out about the effect of SSF on ruminal digestibility of fruit and vegetables discards, with most of them being focused only on the protein content increase and bioactive compounds release [8,11]. The lack of knowledge about the effect of fermented fruit and vegetables on ruminal fermentation and diet digestibility limit their use in ruminant rations. In this sense, identifying digestibility of the fermented product could add extra information about the applicability of the final product, which is necessary to maximize the effective use of these fermented by-products. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore the effects of fungal SSF of fruit and vegetable discards on their nutrient profile and on in vitro digestibility and fermentation kinetics, with a view towards including them as a suitable product for ruminant feed.

2. Materials and Methods

The study comprised two experiments. The first experiment consisted of a short-term in vitro batch fermentation trial designed to assess the effect of the SSF on rumen fermentation of fruit and vegetable mix discards. The second experiment consisted of a long-term in vitro batch fermentation trial designed to study differences in fermentation kinetics.

2.1. Microorganism, Culture Media and Inoculum

The Rhizopus strain (ROR004, internal code) was isolated and characterized in our laboratory [7] to be used as a fermentation agent.
Potato dextrose agar (PDA) and buffered peptone water (both from Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK) were used for fungal propagation, count and dilution when required. Tween 80 (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was used for inoculum preparation. All media were prepared as recommended by the producer and sterilized at 121 °C for 15 min. Plates for total fungal counts were incubated at 30 °C for 48 h.
Spore suspension was prepared with the mycelia formed in a PDA plate after 5 days of incubation at 30 °C. After collecting the mycelia and mixing it with 20 mL of sterile distilled water (0.01% Tween 80), suspension was maintained for 24 h at 30 °C and filtered thought 300 µm sterile filter to obtain the liquid spore suspension.

2.2. Fruit and Vegetable Discards

Substrates for SSF were three independent fruit and vegetable discard mixtures obtained from Mercabilbao (commercial perishable food distribution center, Basauri, Spain) to achieve true replications [24,25]. The mixtures were composed of approximately 28% citric fruits (tangerine, orange and lemon), 35% other fruits (nectarine, apple, pear, watermelon, pomegranate and banana) and 37% vegetables (tomato, pumpkin, onion, green bean, pepper, leek, artichoke, cabbage, carrot, broccoli, potato, asparagus, chard and lettuce). After cutting (R 10 v.v, Robot coupe, Mataró, Spain), the samples were centrifuged in a vertical axis centrifuge with filter bag (Comteifa, Badalona, Spain) in order to remove water excess, and each sample was divided into 2 subsamples, the control (CTR, without treatment) and the one that will be subjected to SSF: the fermented sample. Both subsamples were dried at 60 °C for 2 h and sterilized (121 °C, 15 min).

2.3. Solid State Fermentation

SSF was carried out in three independent processing runs at 30 °C for 192 h on a 1680 cm2 surface plastic tray, with an estimated substrate density around 0.09 g of dry substrate/cm2. Plastic trays were cleaned with ethanol 70% and exposed to UV light for 30 min before adding the substrate. SSF runs of FVS were inoculated with 107 cfu/g. Plastic trays were covered with lids but without closing them hermetically to enable the air entrance. Trays were weighed before and after the SSF process.

2.4. Short-Term In Vitro Batch Fermentation Trial

Samples were dried at 60 °C in a forced-air oven for 48 h (SELECTA, Barcelona, Spain) and were ground to pass a 1-mm screen (RETSCH ZM-200, Llanera, Spain). The six samples served as the substrate in three in vitro runs. In each of the runs, rumen fluid was collected from one multiparous Latxa ewe slaughtered for production purposes. Before slaughtering, ewes were fed a basal diet (80% meadow hay and 20% compound feed) for 3 weeks and had free access to fresh water and feed. Ruminal fluid was collected before the morning feeding and strained through four layers of cheesecloth into a pre-warmed thermos flask.
Approximately 500 mg of CTR or SSF sample of the three independent processing runs were weighed into 125-mL serum bottles, 50 mL of culture fluid was added (1:4 ruminal fluid and phosphate–bicarbonate buffer, respectively; [26]) and bottles were crimp sealed. Each sample was incubated in triplicate, and bottles were incubated at a constant temperature (39 °C) in an incubator for 24 h. Gas production was released at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15 h post-inoculation to avoid pressure in the bottle headspace exceeding 48 kPa, as suggested by Theodorou et al. [27]. After 24 h of incubation, bottles were put in the fridge for 15 min to stop fermentation for subsequent sampling of short chain fatty acid (SCFA) determination.

2.5. Long-Term In Vitro Batch Fermentation Trial

The animals, substrates and incubation procedures were the same as those described in the previous section. Approximately 500 mg of CTR or SSF samples of the three independent processing runs were weighed into 125-mL serum bottles and incubated in an incubator at 39 °C with 10 mL strained rumen fluid and 40 mL of medium [26] to determine rate and extent of gas production by reading gas pressure in the bottle headspace at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 24, 30, 36, 48, 72 and 96 h post-inoculation, using a semi-automated pressure transducer following the technique proposed by Theodorou et al. [28] and modified by Mauricio et al. [29]. Pressure values, corrected for the quantity of substrate dry matter (DM) incubated and gas released from blanks, were used to generate gas volume estimates.

2.6. Chemical Analyses

CTR and SSF samples of the three independent processing runs were dried in a forced-air oven (SELECTA, Barcelona, Spain) and were ground to pass a 1-mm screen (RETSCH ZM-200, Llanera, Spain). DM content (method 934.01) was determined following [30]. Ash content was determined by ignition of the dried material (method 942.05). Nitrogen content (method 941.04) was determined using the macro-Kjeldahl procedure on a Kjeltec Auto 1030 (Foss, Hillerød, Denmark). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was determined with use of an alpha amylase, but without sodium sulfite, and was expressed free of ash [31]. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) was determined and expressed exclusive of residual ash [32]. Neutral detergent insoluble protein (NDICP) was determined by analyzing the NDF residues for Kjeldahl nitrogen. Total reducing sugars were determined by the Dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) method [33] adjusted to the microplate assay procedure (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Roskilde, Denmark). Briefly, the DNS acid reagent was prepared by dissolving 8 g of NaOH in 100 mL of distilled water. Then, 5 g of DNS (Fischer Scientific, Loughborough, UK), 250 mL of distilled water and 150 g of potassium sodium tartrate tetrahydrate (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany) were added and made up to the volume (500 mL). Sample, blank or standard (25 μL), different concentrations of D-glucose (Fischer Scientific, Loughborough, UK), and 25 μL of DNS reagent were added to each well and incubated for 10 min at 100 °C. The microplate was rapidly cooled in an ice bath and 250 μL of distilled water was added to each well. Absorbance was read at 540 nm.
In vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) in the short term in vitro trial was calculated as described by Pell and Schofield [34], whereby 45 mL of a neutral detergent solution was added to each bottle and warmed at 105 °C for 1 h; then, the bottles were cooled, filtered through glass filter crucibles (Porosity 1) and washed with distilled water, ethanol and acetone. The remaining sample was dried at 100 °C overnight and then burned in a muffle furnace at 500 °C to obtain true IVOMD values.
The analysis of the SCFA (acetic, propionic, butyric, isobutyric, valeric and isovaleric) of rumen samples was performed by gas chromatography using a flame ionization detector. A volume of 4 mL of rumen liquor mixed with 1 mL of a solution of 20 g/L of metyl-valeric acid as an internal standard in 0.5 N HCl was centrifuged (15,000× g for 15 min at 4 °C) to separate the liquid phase from the feed residuals. After, the liquid phase was microfiltered (premium syringe filter regenerated cellulose, 0.45µm 4 mm, Agilent Technologies, Madrid, Spain), and 0.5 µL of liquid phase was directly injected in the apparatus (Agilent 6890 N, Agilent, Spain) using a semicapillary column (30 m × 530 um; 1-µm particle size; HP-FFAP, Agilent, Spain) kept at 300 °C in the injector with a hydrogen flow rate of 40 mL/min, air flow 400 mL/min and make up (nitrogen) 25 mL/min flow. The injection loop was 20 µL. Individual SCFA were identified using a standard solution of 4.50 g/L of acetic acid, 5.76 g/L of propionic acid, 7.02 g/L of butyric acid and isobutyric acid and 8.28 g/L of valeric acid and isovaleric acid in 0.1 N H2SO4 (A6283, P1386, B103500, I1754, 240370, 129542, respectively; Sigma-Aldrich, Madrid, Spain). Quantification expressed in mmol/L was done using an external calibration curve based on the standards described above. Data were expressed in mol/100 mol.

2.7. Calculations and Statistical Analysis

Stoichiometric methane values were estimated using equations proposed by Blϋmmel et al. [35] based on the stoichiometry of Wolin [36].
Fermentation kinetics were described according to the exponential model described by Krishnamoorthy et al. [37] as:
Y = A ( 1 − e − c ( t − L ) )
where Y is gas production (mL/g DM) at time t, A is gas production from the insoluble fraction (mL/g DM), c is the gas production rate constant for fraction A (h−1) and L is the lag time prior to gas production (h).
The parameters A, c and L for each bottle were calculated using a non-linear regression procedure, which minimizes actual distances of data points to fitted curves by Marquardt’s algorithm.
The total number of observations was 3 processing runs × 2 treatments (CTR and SSF) × 3 in vitro incubation runs × 3 lab reps. = 54; however, after averaging incubation runs and lab replicates, the remaining 6 observations were subjected to analysis of variance using the GLM procedure [38]. The statistical model, therefore, only included the fixed effect of the treatment. The least squares means for treatments are reported. Treatment means were separated using a Bonferroni adjustment, and significant effects were declared at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the chemical composition of fruit and vegetable mix discards subjected to or not subjected to SSF. Solid state fermentation reduced OM content (p < 0.001) and reducing sugar content (p < 0.001) but increased CP (p < 0.001), NDF (p < 0.001), ADF (p < 0.001) and NDICP (p < 0.001) fractions.
Effects of SSF on the gas production profile of fruit and vegetable mix discards can be seen in Table 2. Solid state fermentation reduced the gas production from the insoluble fraction (p = 0.001), without modifying the gas production rate (p = 0.676) or the lag time prior to gas production (p = 0.574).
Effects of SSF on in vitro digestibility and fermentation parameters are shown in Table 3. In vitro organic matter digestibility was lower for the fermented substrate (p < 0.001). SSF reduced total SCFA (p = 0.003) and CH4 production (p = 0.002). However, SCFA (p < 0.001) and CH4 (p = 0.001) related to truly digestible substrate were increased with SSF. Solid state fermentation led to a shift in the fermentation patterns towards increased acetic (p = 0.020) and decreased propionic (p = 0.004) and butyric (p = 0.006) acids proportions. As a consequence, SSF increased acetic to propionic (p = 0.008) and acetic plus butyric to propionic (p = 0.011) ratios. SSF also increased proportions of isobutyric (p = 0.003), isovaleric (p = 0.003) and total BCVFA (p = 0.003).

4. Discussion

Sustainable livestock development requires novel feed resources to reduce feed costs and that do not compete with human food ingredients. Taking into account that feed is one of the largest costs in animal production, searching for economically interesting alternatives or new feedstuffs has been a hot topic in animal research in the last decades. In this context, a very interesting alternative is the use of agro-industrial residues in the animals’ rations. A large amount of vegetable by-products are wasted every year. Its disposal into the environment, being highly biodegradable, results in the production of a foul smell and affects the aquatic life and ecosystem. Utilization of such a “waste” in animals’ nutrition would contribute to reduce feeding cost and, at the same time, would be in the interest of prevention of resource wastage and better economy of the processing plants.
However, many of these residues have properties that may compromise diet digestibility or animal production, such as their inherent nutritional composition (low protein or high lignin content and fiber proportion) or the presence of toxic or anti-nutritional compounds (mycotoxins, phenolic compounds) [39].
In this sense, some authors report SSF as a promising alternative in the use of these agro-industrial by-products as a culture medium in order to account for these problems, making its use feasible in animal feed [40]. It has been also shown that SSF is one of the most suitable and economic techniques for detoxifying or enhancing protein enrichment, as well as for an efficient digestion and utilization of lignocellulosic agricultural fibrous feeds and fodder residues [14,18]. Therefore, this can enhance their feed values and bring benefits both to the economy and the environment, promoting the circular economy.
During the SSF, the fungus executes a repertory of extracellular enzymes allowing the fungus to obtain nutrients from complex polymers while simultaneously producing changes in the chemical composition of the substrate, in addition to the production of other metabolites [41].
The fruit and vegetable discard used in this trial presented a limited CP content, so one of the objectives of the SSF process was to enrich the CP content in the fermented product. The current 15.7% increase in the CP content of the fermented substrate may be due to the high production of fungal cell mass, which led to a reduction of reducing sugars, and consequently the production of protein within the fungus population. This is in agreement with other previous studies [42,43,44] that demonstrated that some fungal species were able to increase the CP level in agro-industries wastes.
Published results using substrates with similar protein content, like rice bran [41,45] and fruit and vegetable wastes [46], reported similar protein content gain (close to 1.5 fold in both cases).
In the studied case, the production of fungal cell mass during fermentation process resulted not only in CP increase but also increased NDICP contents, which could be explained by the growth of Rhizopus biomass. Rhizopus cell wall is a complex heteropolysaccharide system mainly composed by chitin and chitosan (polymers of N-acetyl-d-glucosamine attached by β-(1,4)-glycosidic linkage), mucoran, mucoric acid and glucan, whose proportion is dependent on the stage of development of the fungus [47], and could in turn explain the greater NDF and NDICP observed in the fermented substrate. These results are of practical feeding importance because NDICP is slowly degraded in the rumen and constitutes a major portion of the ruminal undegraded protein content [48]. These results agree with those of Silveira and Badiale-Furlong [49] and Ranjan et al. [50], who found a decrease in CP digestibility in these fermented products, and Nicolini et al. [51] who found a decrease in the in vitro true digestibility of fermented orange peels.
Therefore, SSF resulted in an increase of CP at the expense of its availability for the rumen microorganisms. In the rumen, CP and amino acids can be degraded, deaminated and decarboxylated [52] to produce branched-chain volatile FA (BCVFA). The observed shift towards accumulation of these fermentation products in the fermented substrate would indicate that the reduction in availability would be compensated by the increase in the content. Moreover, BCVFA are known as essential nutrients for ruminal cellulolytic microorganisms [53], which agrees with the increased fiber content observed in the fermented substrate.
Chitin is a biopolymer structurally similar to cellulose, so it is not surprising that fungal growth resulted in an increase of the NDF proportion in the fermented substrate after SSF. The observed results agree with those reported by Joshi and Sandhu [54] and Oliveira, Feddern, Kupski, Cipolatti, Badiale-Furlong and de Souza-Soares [41], but disagree with those reported by Cooray and Chen [55], who found reductions in the NDF content after fermentation. This is not surprising because the effect depends on the nature of the fermented substrate. When the fermented substrate is a high lignified or fiber rich waste, the SSF contributes to degrade recalcitrant plant cell walls, reducing fiber content in the fermented residue [20,55], but when the initial substrate is not very lignified and rich in fiber, the growth of the fungal mycelium, rich in chitin, contributes to an increase in the fiber content of the obtained fermented residue [41,54].
SSF has been claimed to improve digestibility by reducing the levels of non-nutritive compounds that inhibit digestive enzymes (e.g., trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors) and promote protein crosslinking (e.g., phenolic and tannin compounds), as well as through the production of microbial proteases, which partially degrade and release some of the proteins [56,57]. The digestibility of the organic matter of vegetables, however, is also closely linked to that of the cell walls [58]. The extent of the degradation of the cell walls in the rumen depends essentially on the extent to which the walls are lignified [58]. Therefore, changes in the chemical composition due to fungal growth after SSF, such as the increased NDF and ADF contents, could also affect digestibility. As a consequence, when SSF was used with fruit and vegetable mix discards, a significant 27.2% reduction in IVOMD was observed. A similar decrease in the digestibility of potato processing waste [59], fermented orange peels and grape distillery stalks [51] and wheat bran [50] have been reported, which agree with the similar physicochemical characteristics of these substrates and the substrate used in the present study. However, although IVOMD decreased and fiber increased with the SSF process, fiber proportions of the solid state fermented fruit and vegetable discards, as well as digestibility values observed, are similar to those of good quality forages used in ruminant rations [60] and seemed to be appropriate to fulfill sheep nutritional requirements [61].
Gas and SCFA production are both directly related to the amount of organic matter fermented by rumen microorganisms [62]. In addition, as commented before, the SSF resulted in greater fiber contents that are less extensive and rapidly fermented by rumen microorganisms. Therefore, the lower values of SCFA and asymptotic gas production observed in the in vitro gas production trials for the fermented substrate compared to CTR would indicate that SSF substrate was fermented at a smaller extent than CTR and support the differences observed in IVOMD.
There were also differences in the SCFA profile due to the SSF process. Solid state fermentation of these wastes produced more acetate and less propionate with a concomitant greater acetate/propionate ratio, indicating a less efficient fermentation [63]. Differences in SCFA profile are again most likely related to the different carbohydrates’ composition [64] and agree with the increased fiber contents and reduced sugar content caused by fungal growth.
Fermentation of carbohydrates in the rumen provides energy for microbial growth. A high synthesis of microbial dry matter requires a high consumption of precursors necessary for microbial growth, which means that less of the fermentable substrate is available for production of SCFA [65]. In situations with a low efficiency of microbial synthesis, production of SCFA relative to TDS is increased; this is the case when SSF is used [65].
In order to avoid digestibility reduction with these wastes, further research is required to optimize the SSF process so that the fungal growth is achieved with a lower chitin creation. For instance, it has been reported that the type of microorganisms used as inoculum in the SSF, the nature of the solid substrates and the fermentation conditions are important parameters that influence the product yield and consequently affect the success of SSF process [66].

5. Conclusions

It can be concluded that SSF of fruit and vegetable discards succeeded in obtaining a stabilized raw material enriched in protein, but at the expense of a reduction of sugar content and an increase in NDICP and fiber, which, in turn, reduced its in vitro digestibility and led to a less efficient fermentation process. These changes in the nutritional profile of the fermented products should be taken into account before including them in ruminant’s rations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G.-R. and J.I.; methodology, A.G.-R., I.G. and J.I.; formal analysis, A.G.-R., I.G., J.I., and M.C.; investigation, A.G.-R., I.G. and J.I.; data curation, A.G.-R. and I.G.; writing—original draft J.I., preparation, A.G.-R. and I.G.; writing—review and editing, A.G.-R., I.G., J.I. and M.C.; supervision, A.G.-R.; project administration, A.G.-R.; funding acquisition, A.G.-R. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Basque Government (Department of Economic and Infrastructure Development, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food policy).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with Spanish Royal Decree 53/2013 for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes and was approved by the Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development Ethics Committee. Ethical approval number: NEIKER-OEBA-2020-009.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Authors thank Mercabilbao for providing the fruit and vegetable discards. Authors also express gratitude to the Laboratorio Pecuario de la Diputación Foral de Alava for their lab assistance. This paper is contribution nº 1029 from AZTI, Food Research, Basque and Technology Alliance (BRTA).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. EFFPA. European Former Foodstuff Processor Association. Reducing Food Waste. Available online: https://www.effpa.eu/reducing-food-waste/ (accessed on 3 October 2018).
  2. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; Van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Wast–Extent, Causes and Prevention; FAO: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Stenmarck, A.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G.; Buksti, M.; Cseh, B.; Juul, S.; Parry, A.; Politano, A.; Redlingshofer, B.; et al. FUSIONS Estimates of European Food Waste Levels; IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. FAOSTAT. New Food Balances. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS (accessed on 23 February 2021).
  5. Wadhwa, M.; Bakshi, M.P.S.; Makkar, H.P.S. Waste to worth: Fruit wastes and by-products as animal feed. CAB Rev. 2015, 10, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bakshi, M.P.S.; Wadhwa, M.; Makkar, H.P.S. Waste to worth: Vegetable wastes as animal feed. CAB Rev. 2016, 11, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ibarruri, J.; Hernández, I. Rhizopus oryzae as fermentation agent in food derived sub-products. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2018, 9, 2107–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rajesh, N.; Imelda, J.; Raj, R.P. Value addition of vegetable wastes by solid-state fermentation using Aspergillus niger for use in aquafeed industry. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2223–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Shin, H.-Y.; Kim, S.-M.; Lee, J.H.; Lim, S.-T. Solid-state fermentation of black rice bran with Aspergillus awamori and Aspergillus oryzae: Effects on phenolic acid composition and antioxidant activity of bran extracts. Food Chem. 2019, 272, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Massarolo, K.C.; de Souza, T.D.; Collazzo, C.C.; Furlong, E.B.; de Souza Soares, L.A. The impact of Rhizopus oryzae cultivation on rice bran: Gamma-oryzanol recovery and its antioxidant properties. Food Chem. 2017, 228, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Sadh, P.K.; Saharan, P.; Duhan, J.S. Bio-augmentation of antioxidants and phenolic content of Lablab purpureus by solid state fermentation with GRAS filamentous fungi. Resour. Effic. Technol. 2017, 3, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lennartsson, P.R.; Edebo, L.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Rhizopus. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Batt, C.A., Tortorello, M.L., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 284–290. ISBN 978-0123847331. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ghosh, B.; Ray, R.R. Current Commercial Perspective of Rhizopus oryzae: A Review. J. Appl. Sci. 2011, 11, 2470–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Morales, E.M.; Domingos, R.N.; Angelis, D.F. Improvement of Protein Bioavailability by Solid-State Fermentation of Babassu Mesocarp Flour and Cassava Leaves. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2018, 9, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Olukomaiya, O.O.; Fernando, W.C.; Mereddy, R.; Li, X.; Sultanbawa, Y. Physicochemical, Microbiological and Functional Properties of Camelina Meal Fermented in Solid-State Using Food Grade Aspergillus Fungi. Fermentation 2020, 6, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Regalado, C.; Vazquez-Obregon, I.; García-Almendárez, B.; García-Almendárez, E.; Dominguez, J.; Aguilera-Barreyro, A.; Amaro Reyes, A. Xylanolytic enzymes production by Aspergillus niger GS1 from solid-state fermentation on corn stover and their effect on ruminal digestibility. Electron. J. Biotechnol. ISSN 2011, 14, 717–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Anele, U.Y.; Anike, F.N.; Davis-Mitchell, A.; Isikhuemhen, O.S. Solid-state fermentation with Pleurotus ostreatus improves the nutritive value of corn stover-kudzu biomass. Folia Microbiol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arredondo-Santoyo, M.; Herrera-Camacho, J.; Vázquez-Garcidueñas, M.S.; Vázquez-Marrufo, G. Corn stover induces extracellular laccase activity in Didymosphaeria sp. (syn. = Paraconiothyrium sp.) and exhibits increased in vitro ruminal digestibility when treated with this fungal species. Folia Microbiol. 2020, 65, 849–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sharma, R.K.; Arora, D.S. Production of lignocellulolytic enzymes and enhancement of in vitro digestibility during solid state fermentation of wheat straw by Phlebia floridensis. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 9248–9253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, C.; Chen, Z.; Wu, Y.; Wang, J. Nutrient and ruminal fermentation profiles of Camellia seed residues with fungal pretreatment. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhao, X.; Wang, F.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, D.; Wang, S.; Wu, D.; Wang, L.; Zhong, R. High-potency white-rot fungal strains and duration of fermentation to optimize corn straw as ruminant feed. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 312, 123512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sadh, P.K.; Duhan, S.; Duhan, J.S. Agro-industrial wastes and their utilization using solid state fermentation: A review. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lizardi-Jimenez, M.A.; Hernandez-Martinez, R. Solid state fermentation (SSF): Diversity of applications to valorize waste and biomass. 3 Biotech. 2017, 7, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Robinson, P.; Wiseman, J.; Udén, P.; Mateos, G. Some experimental design and statistical criteria for analysis of studies in manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 129, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Udén, P.; Robinson, P.H.; Mateos, G.G.; Blank, R. Use of replicates in statistical analyses in papers submitted for publication in Animal Feed Science and Technology. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 171, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Menke, K.H.; Steingass, H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Dev. 1988, 28, 9–55. [Google Scholar]
  27. Theodorou, M.K.; Lowman, R.S.; Davies, Z.S.; Cuddeford, D.; Owen, E. Principles of techniques that rely on gas measurement in ruminant nutrition. In In Vitro Techniques for Measuring Nutrient Supply to Ruminants; Deaville, E.R., Owen, E., Adesogan, A.T., Rymer, C., Huntington, J.A., Lawrence, T.L.J., Eds.; BSAP Occasional Publication: Edinburgh, UK, 1998; pp. 55–64. [Google Scholar]
  28. Theodorou, M.K.; Williams, B.A.; Dhanoa, M.S.; McAllan, A.B.; France, J. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1994, 48, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mauricio, R.M.; Mould, F.L.; Dhanoa, M.S.; Owen, E.; Channa, K.S.; Theodorou, M.K. A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999, 79, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. In Official Methods of Analysis; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Robertson, J.B.; Van Soest, P.J. The Detergent System of Analysis. In The Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Food; James, W.P.T., Theander, O., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1981; pp. 123–158. [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller, G.L. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal. Chem. 1959, 31, 426–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pell, A.N.; Schofield, P. Computerized Monitoring of Gas Production to Measure Forage Digestion In Vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 1993, 76, 1063–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Blϋmmel, M.; Aiple, K.; Steingaβ, H.; Becker, K. A note on the stoichiometrical relationship of short chain fatty acid production and gas formation in feedstuffs of widely differing quality. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2002, 81, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wolin, M.J. A Theoretical Rumen Fermentation Balance. J. Dairy Sci. 1960, 43, 1452–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Krishnamoorthy, U.; Soller, H.; Steingass, H.; Menke, K.H. A comparative study on rumen fermentation of energy supplements in vitro. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 1991, 65, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. SAS. Enterprise’s Guide; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tengerdy, R.P.; Szakacs, G. Bioconversion of lignocellulose in solid substrate fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2003, 13, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Godoy, M.G.; Amorim, G.M.; Barreto, M.S.; Freire, D.M.G. Chapter 12: Agricultural Residues as Animal Feed: Protein Enrichment and Detoxification Using Solid-State Fermentation. In Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Pandey, A., Larroche, C., Soccol, C.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 235–256. [Google Scholar]
  41. Oliveira, M.d.S.; Feddern, V.; Kupski, L.; Cipolatti, E.P.; Badiale-Furlong, E.; de Souza-Soares, L.A. Physico-chemical characterization of fermented rice bran biomass. Caracterización fisico-química de la biomasa del salvado de arroz fermentado. CYTA J. Food 2010, 8, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. FazeliNejad, S.; Ferreira, J.A.; Brandberg, T.; Lennartsson, P.R.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Fungal protein and ethanol from lignocelluloses using Rhizopus pellets under simultaneous saccharification, filtration and fermentation (SSFF). Biofuel Res. J. 2016, 3, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Ibarruri, J.; Hernández, I. Valorization of cheese whey and orange molasses for fungal biomass production by submerged fermentation with Rhizopus sp. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 42, 1285–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jacqueline, E.; Visser, B. Biotechnology: Building on Farmers knowledge. In Assessing the Potential; Bunders, J., Haverkort, B., Hiemstra, W., Eds.; MPS: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kupski, L.; Cipolatti, E.; da Rocha, M.; Oliveira, M.D.; Souza-Soares, L.D.; Badiale-Furlong, E. Solid-state fermentation for the enrichment and extraction of proteins and antioxidant compounds in rice bran by Rhizopus oryzae. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2012, 55, 937–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ibarruri, J.; Cebrián, M.; Hernández, I. Valorisation of fruit and vegetable discards by fungal submerged and solid-state fermentation for alternative feed ingredients production. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 281, 111901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lecointe, K.; Cornu, M.; Leroy, J.; Coulon, P.; Sendid, B. Polysaccharides Cell Wall Architecture of Mucorales. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sniffen, C.; O’Connor, J.; Soest, P.; Fox, D.; Russell, J. A Net Carbohydrate and Protein System for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J. Anim. Sci. 1992, 70, 3562–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Silveira, C.; Badiale-Furlong, E. Sperathe Effects of Solid-state Fermentation in the Functional Properties of Defatted Rice Bran and Wheat Bran. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2009, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ranjan, A.; Sahu, N.P.; Deo, A.D.; Kumar, S. Solid state fermentation of de-oiled rice bran: Effect on in vitro protein digestibility, fatty acid profile and anti-nutritional factors. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nicolini, L.; Volpe, C.; Pezzotti, A.; Carilli, A. Changes in in-vitro digestibility of orange peels and distillery grape stalks after solid-state fermentation by higher fungi. Bioresour. Technol. 1993, 45, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Andries, J.I.; Buysse, F.X.; De Brabander, D.L.; Cottyn, B.G. Isoacids in ruminant nutrition: Their role in ruminal and intermediary metabolism and possible influences on performances—A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1987, 18, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, Q.; Wang, C.; Guo, G.; Huo, W.J.; Zhang, Y.L.; Pei, C.X.; Zhang, S.L.; Wang, H. Effects of branched-chain volatile fatty acids supplementation on growth performance, ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility, hepatic lipid content and gene expression of dairy calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 237, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Joshi, V.K.; Sandhu, D.K. Preparation and evaluation of an animal feed byproduct produced by solid-state fermentation of apple pomace. Bioresour. Technol. 1996, 56, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cooray, S.T.; Chen, W.N. Valorization of brewer’s spent grain using fungi solid-state fermentation to enhance nutritional value. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 42, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chandra-Hioe, M.V.; Wong, C.H.M.; Arcot, J. The Potential Use of Fermented Chickpea and Faba Bean Flour as Food Ingredients. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2016, 71, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Çabuk, B.; Nosworthy, M.; Stone, A.; Korber, D.; Tanaka, T.; House, J.; Nickerson, M. Effect of Fermentation on the Protein Digestibility and Levels of Non-Nutritive Compounds of Pea Protein Concentrate. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2018, 56, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jarrige, R.; Minson, D.J. Digestibilité des constituants du ray-grass anglais S24 et du dactyle S37, plus spécialement des constituants glucidiques. Ann. Zootech. 1964, 13, 117–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Arora, M.; Wadhwa, M.; Sehgal, V.K. In-vivo evaluation of fermented potato processing waste as ruminant feed. Indian J. Microbiol 1995, 35, 259–261. [Google Scholar]
  60. R., B.; Dulphy, J.P.; Sauvant, D.; Tran, G.; Meschy, F.; Aufrère, J.; Peyraud, J.L.; Champciaux, P. Les tables de la valeur des aliments. In Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et Caprins. Besoins des Animaux-Valeurs des Aliments; Quae, É., Ed.; QUAE: Versailles, France, 2007; pp. 181–275. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hassoun, P.; Bocquier, F. Alimentation des ovins. In Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et Caprins. Besoins des Animaux-Valeurs des Aliments; Quae, É., Ed.; QUAE: Versailles, France, 2007; pp. 12–136. [Google Scholar]
  62. Menke, K.H.; Raab, L.; Salewski, A.; Steingass, H.; Fritz, D.; Schneider, W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 93, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Chalupa, W. Manipulating Rumen Fermentation. J. Anim. Sci. 1977, 45, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sutton, J.D. Digestion and end-product formation in the rumen from production rations. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Clermont—Ferrand, France, 3–7 September 1979; Ruckebusch, Y., Thivend, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1980; pp. 271–290. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hvelplund, T. Volatile fatty acids and protein production. In Rumen Microbial Metabolism and Ruminant Digestion; Jouany, J.P., Ed.; INRA: Paris, France, 1991; pp. 165–178. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pandey, A.; Selvakumar, P.; Soccol, C.; Nigam, P. Solid State Fermentation for the Production of Industrial Enzymes. Curr. Sci. 1999, 77, 149–162. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Effect of solid state fermentation process on the chemical composition of fruit and vegetable mix discards.
Table 1. Effect of solid state fermentation process on the chemical composition of fruit and vegetable mix discards.
Item (g kg−1 DM Unless Otherwise Stated)TreatmentSEMp-Value
SSFCTR
DM (g kg−1)901891220.609
OM9409600.5<0.001
Reducing sugars432652.1<0.001
CP1571001.4<0.001
NDF39819620.1<0.001
ADF30315312.7<0.001
NDICP (g kg−1 CP)339.59.070.001
SSF: solid state fermentation, CTR: control (fruit and vegetable mix discards), DM: dry matter, OM: organic matter, CP: crude protein, NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber, NDICP: neutral detergent insoluble protein, SEM: standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 2. Effects of solid state fermentation process on the in vitro gas production profile of fruit and vegetable mix discards.
Table 2. Effects of solid state fermentation process on the in vitro gas production profile of fruit and vegetable mix discards.
ItemTreatmentSEMp-Value
SSFCTR
A (m Lg DM−1)20730313.80.001
c (h−1)0.0570.0610.01030.676
L (h)1.100.750.6870.574
SSF: Solid state fermentation, CTR: control (fruit and vegetable mix discards), A: gas production from the insoluble fraction, c: gas production rate constant for fraction A, L: lag time prior to gas production, DM: dry matter, SEM: standard error of the mean.
Table
Table 3. Effects of solid state fermentation process on in vitro digestibility and fermentation parameters of fruit and vegetable mix discards.
Table 3. Effects of solid state fermentation process on in vitro digestibility and fermentation parameters of fruit and vegetable mix discards.
ItemTreatmentSEMp-Value
SSFCTR
IVOMD (g kg−1)58580414.3<0.001
SCFA (mmol L−1)76.489.62.610.003
SCFA: TDS (mmol g OM−1)3082606.6<0.001
CH4 (mmol L−1)24.829.30.810.002
CH4: TDS (mmol/g OM−1)9.998.500.2240.001
Individual SCFA proportions (mmol 100 mmol−1)
Acetic63.861.80.670.020
Propionic20.120.90.170.004
Butyric12.714.50.430.006
Isobutyric0.7020.4720.04470.003
Valeric1.381.510.0900.155
Isovaleric1.350.8740.08870.003
Branched-chain FA2.051.350.1330.003
Acetic:propionic3.192.960.0550.008
(acetic+butyric):propionic3.823.670.0420.011
SSF: Solid state fermentation, CTR: control (fruit and vegetable mix discards), IVOMD: in vitro organic matter digestibility, SCFA: short chain fatty acid, OM: organic matter, FA: fatty acids, TDS: truly digestible substrate, SEM: standard error of the mean.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ibarruri, J.; Goiri, I.; Cebrián, M.; García-Rodríguez, A. Solid State Fermentation as a Tool to Stabilize and Improve Nutritive Value of Fruit and Vegetable Discards: Effect on Nutritional Composition, In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Organic Matter Digestibility. Animals 2021, 11, 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061653

AMA Style

Ibarruri J, Goiri I, Cebrián M, García-Rodríguez A. Solid State Fermentation as a Tool to Stabilize and Improve Nutritive Value of Fruit and Vegetable Discards: Effect on Nutritional Composition, In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Organic Matter Digestibility. Animals. 2021; 11(6):1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061653

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ibarruri, Jone, Idoia Goiri, Marta Cebrián, and Aser García-Rodríguez. 2021. "Solid State Fermentation as a Tool to Stabilize and Improve Nutritive Value of Fruit and Vegetable Discards: Effect on Nutritional Composition, In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Organic Matter Digestibility" Animals 11, no. 6: 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061653

APA Style

Ibarruri, J., Goiri, I., Cebrián, M., & García-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Solid State Fermentation as a Tool to Stabilize and Improve Nutritive Value of Fruit and Vegetable Discards: Effect on Nutritional Composition, In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Organic Matter Digestibility. Animals, 11(6), 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061653

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