Next Article in Journal
Adaptive Party Choice of Low-Ranking Males in Fission–Fusion Dynamics of Chimpanzees in Kalinzu Forest Reserve, Uganda
Previous Article in Journal
Ketosis Alters Transcriptional Adaptations of Subcutaneous White Adipose Tissue in Holstein Cows during the Transition Period
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/ani12172239
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:
Review

Grape By-Products as Feedstuff for Pig and Poultry Production

by
Mónica M. Costa
1,2,†,
Cristina M. Alfaia
1,2,†,
Paula A. Lopes
1,2,
José M. Pestana
1,2 and
José A. M. Prates
1,2,*
1
CIISA—Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar em Sanidade Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Laboratório Associado para Ciência Animal e Veterinária (AL4AnimalS), Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2022, 12(17), 2239; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172239
Submission received: 5 July 2022 / Revised: 28 August 2022 / Accepted: 29 August 2022 / Published: 30 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Nutrition)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Grape is one of the most produced fruits worldwide for juice and winery industries. Grape by-products include grape pomace, grape seed, and grape-seed oil, and are valuable, although underexplored, ingredients for pig and poultry feeding. Indeed, they are rich in fiber and bioactive phenolic compounds, which makes them promising sources to partially replace conventional and unsustainable feedstuffs. However, grape by-products are mostly discarded or misused (e.g., landfills) with a negative environmental impact. The present review focuses on the effects of grape by-products on poultry and pig production. Overall, these dietary sources could improve piglet growth when added up to 9% feed, conversely to poultry where this result was only obtained using by-products up to 3%. The beneficial effect on animal growth performance is caused by the presence of nutritional and bioactive compounds with consequent enhancement of intestinal health. The incorporation of high levels of grape by-products in poultry diets can impair growth performance due to the presence of anti-nutritional compounds. Therefore, the use of processes, such as enzymatic supplementation and pre-treatments, to degrade or inhibit these compounds, should be further explored to allow grape by-products to be used as feed ingredients for monogastric animals.

Abstract

Grape by-products are exceptional options for replacement of conventional and unsustainable feed sources, since large amounts are generated every year from the winery industry. However, the majority is wasted with severe environmental and economic consequences. The present review aimed to evaluate the effects of grape by-products on pig and poultry growth performance. The most recent literature was reviewed using ScienceDirect and PubMed databases and the results of a total of 16 and 38 papers for pigs and poultry, respectively, were assessed. Fewer studies are documented for pig, but the incorporation of grape by-products up to 9% feed led to an improvement in growth performance with an increase in average daily gain. Conversely, lower levels (<3% feed) are needed to achieve these results in poultry. The beneficial effects of grape by-products on animal performance are mainly due to their antioxidant, antimicrobial, and gut morphology modulator properties, but their high level of cell wall lignification and content of polyphenolic compounds (e.g., tannin) limits nutrient digestion and absorption by monogastric animals. The use of exogenous enzymes or mechanical/chemical processes can provide additional nutritional value to these products by improving nutrient bioavailability. Overall, the valorization of grape by-products is imperative to use them as feed alternatives and intestinal health promoters, thereby contributing to boost circular agricultural economy.

1. Introduction

The steady growth of the human population in the last decades has increased the demand for animal products worldwide, including the most consumed meats (i.e., poultry and pork) and eggs [1]. Feed supply contributes to the highest percentage of total livestock production costs [2]. Therefore, finding sustainable and economically viable alternatives to replace conventional feedstuffs is imperative. Agro-industrial by-products represent an exceptional option of replacement, since they are generated in large amounts every year, mostly from juice and winery industries, the majority being discarded or misused (e.g., landfills) [2]. Indeed, the worldwide wine industry produces thousands of tons of residues per year leading to a big challenge for waste management [3]. Besides their availability and low cost, these by-products are a rich source of nutritional compounds, in which fiber, proteins, minerals, and vitamins, as well other elements, such as antioxidants, stand out. In addition, they can be used as antimicrobial agents, and, thus, reducing the need for antibiotics [2].
Fruit-derived by-products are extensively generated worldwide, and the grape agro-industrial sector is of upmost economic importance [2]. Vitis vinifera sativa production is of high relevance because their grape berries, raw and dried, display excellent nutritional components along with pharmaceutical properties, in particular the grape derivatives such as peel and seed extracts [4,5]. In what concerns the wine production, grape pomace accounts for 62%, wine lees account for 14%, and stalk accounts for 12% of organic waste [6]. The main by-product of the grape industry is grape pomace, which contains skins, stems, seeds, and pulp. This product is an intermediate of wine production that is obtained after pressing or crushing whole fruits [2,7]. The global production of wine was 260 million hectoliters in 2021 [8], which contributes to the generation of millions of tons of by-products per year. The Mediterranean countries were among the greatest producers, Italy, France, and Spain standing out with productions of 50.2, 37.6, and 35.3 million hl, respectively, and, with a minor production, Portugal (7.3 million hl) [8]. Altogether, this corresponded to 50.2% of the total amount of wine produced worldwide. However, other countries such as the United States, Australia, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa, were also significant wine producers, with productions of 24.1, 14.2, 13.4, 12.5, and 10.6 million hl of wine in 2021 (28.9% of total) [8]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, an increased awareness for the importance of adopting a sustainable agriculture and livestock practice has occurred [9]. The need to reduce the environmental impact of waste disposal gives additional value to grape by-products for several industrial applications, such as soil fertilization, feed, food, bioenergy (biogas), biofuel (bioethanol), pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and cosmetic compounds [10,11]. The potential of by-products for composting and fertilization is remarkable since they might present suitable organic loads and mineral elements for plant growth, although it is necessary to control the levels of minerals that can act as contaminants [12]. Moreover, the incorporation of these sources into the animal diet requires an evaluation of their effect on animal production, by testing their outcomes, positive or negative, on growth performance. Climate changes are one of the most important problems that agriculture faces nowadays. The future relies on how to continue livestock production, mitigating the negative effects for the farmer. In general, climate change has high economic, environmental, and social costs, but the sectors most influenced and affected are agriculture and forests, as they develop in the open air, and depend almost solely on weather conditions. The environmental impact of humankind results in modifications of water resources and irrigation requirements, soil fertility, salinity, and erosion, crop growth conditions, productivity and distribution, land use, optimal conditions for livestock production, agricultural pests and diseases, and increased expenditure on emergency and remediation actions [3].
The present review updates the results of using grape by-products from the agro-industrial sector, as one of the main crops with largest expression worldwide, on the production performance of pigs and poultry.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology used was based on the search literature from the last decades, covering ScienceDirect (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia PA, USA), and PubMed (NCBI, Bethesda MD, USA) databases, and using “grape”, “by-products”, “grape by-products”, “growth performance”, hens”, “laying hens”, “laying hen pullets”, “turkeys”, “broiler”, “broiler chicken”, “quails”, “weaned pigs”, “weaning”, “grape pomace”, “seedless pomace”, “grape seed”, “poultry”, “weaned piglets”, and “pigs” as keywords. No papers were found for “laying hen pullets”, “turkeys”, and “seedless pomace”. The literature search was performed in June of 2022 and a total of 16 and 38 papers were found for pigs and poultry, respectively.

3. Nutritional Properties of Grape By-Products and Strategies to Overcome Their Negative Effects

The processing of grapes (V. vinifera) into wine or juice generates a large number of solid residues that correspond to several by-products, including vine shoots, stalks, pomace, grape-seed extract, lees, and spent filter cakes. These are good sources of bioactive compounds [13], which makes them suitable to be considered as functional ingredients [14]. The chemical composition of grape by-products depends on the maturity level, environmental factors, grape variety [15], and the technology employed in the wine-making process [2]. Nevertheless, they are generally rich in phenolic compounds and fiber (Table 1 and Table 2).
Grape pomace accounts for about 20–25% of the grape weight used for wine production [16], and, thus, is predominantly rich in a wide range of polyphenols, particularly located in the skin [13], but also contains fiber, proteins, lipids, and minerals. The protein (12% dry weight) contains the essential amino acids for monogastric animals, although tryptophan was not measured in the reported studies. There is a predominance of arginine (7.2%), aspartic acid (7.1%), glutamic acid (11.5%), glycine (6.2%), and threonine (21.7%). Lysine, which is the first limiting amino acid in pig and the second in poultry diets, is present in considerable amounts (average of 4.5% of total amino acids) conversely to methionine (up to 1.4%), the first limiting amino acid for poultry (Table 1). The grape pomace can be divided into two fractions: seedless pomace (residual pulp, stem, and skin) (48–62%) and seeds (38–52%). The first is rich in dietary fiber, whereas seeds are mainly valued for their oil containing unsaturated fatty acids (oleic and linoleic acids). Although the phenolic compound profile is variable, both fractions are rich in flavonoids, such as anthocyanins and proanthocyanidins in seedless pomace and flavonols in seeds [5]. Overall, phenolic compounds present in grape pomace include phenolic acids and alcohols, flavonoids, such as proanthocyanidins and catechin, and stilbenes (resveratrol) [2,13]. Their antioxidant activity has been reported [2,13,17], together with the ability of grape pomace to increase vitamin E synthesis in the liver [18] and glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities in the digestive tract of monogastric animals [19]. Although different bioactivities have been attributed to grape pomace fractions, as, for example, a stronger bactericidal effect for seedless pomace, the whole grape pomace is normally used in animal studies [5].
Grape seed is composed of fibers (47%, 60–70% non-digestible), complex carbohydrates (29%), fat (13%, rich in essential fatty acids), proteins (11%), minerals, and extractable phenolic compounds (Table 1 and Table 2). The latter include mostly phenolic acids (e.g., gallic acid) and flavonoids (e.g., protocatechuic acid and epicatechin) [16,20]. The protein is composed of all the essential amino acids, with an average of 4.5% for lysine and 3.5% for methionine. The most predominant amino acids are the same as for grape pomace, except for threonine (4.0%). In fact, glutamic acid and glycine can reach values up to 30.3 and 16.0%, respectively (Table 1). Grape-seed extract and grape-seed oil are two by-products derived from grape seeds. The grape-seed extract is obtained when grape seeds from grape juice or wine processing are extracted, dried, and purified in order to produce a residue enriched in polyphenols [21]. These compounds have strong antioxidant (efficient removal of free radicals with reduction of deleterious oxidative reactions) [22,23] and antimicrobial [20] properties.
The incorporation of grape by-products in animal feeds presents concerns related to the uptake of toxic elements by the grape vineyard from residual biosolids, environmental pollution, and irrigation water [24,25]. These elements include heavy metals (e.g., Al, As, Pb, Cd, and Ni) [26] and toxins, such as ochratoxin A and biogenic amines [11], which are mostly released from chemical pesticides and fertilizers to the cultivation soil. In addition, they can be a result of industrial activities and human traffic [24,25]. Few studies reported the presence of heavy metals in the whole grape pomace [27,28], with values (mg/kg DM) averaging 111 for Al [28], 16.3 for Pb, 3.5 for Ni, and 1.1 for Cd [27]. Indeed, most reports analyzed the accumulation of trace elements in grape stem [27,29], skin [30,31,32], or seed [26,32]. There is a great variability in heavy metal contents in grape by-products, since they depend on soil composition and contamination and on the grape genetic variety. For instance, 8.1 mg/kg DM of Al and 0.002 mg/kg DM of Pb was found in grape skin in the study from De Nisco et al. [30], but other grape varieties could accumulate 158–575 mg/kg DM of Pb in their skins [32]. However, in grape stem and seed, the predominant trace element was Al (average of 201 and 0.78 mg/kg DM, respectively) (Table 2). Although high levels of these trace elements can be harmful to animals with potential carcinogenic effects [33] and kidney, nervous, and immune system toxicity [34], there is a lack of reference values for the evaluation of toxic effects of grape by-products used as feedstuffs [11]. Nevertheless, As, Cd, and Pb should not be higher than 0.5, 0.5, and 0.2 mg/kg in food ingredients [35], and, thus, Pb values, which can reach up to 26.2 mg/kg in grape stem, should be monitored. The minimization of anthropogenic sources of trace elements [25], selection of grape varieties [29], and application of bioremediation techniques to remove heavy metals from the soil [36], are possible solutions to face the concerning issues.
The potential value of by-products in animal feeding depends essentially on their nutritive properties, such as fibrous, protein, and organic-matter digestibility and energy value. Although grape pomace, grape seeds, and grape-seed oil contain beneficial compounds for monogastric animals’ metabolism and growth, such as essential fatty acids and antioxidant phytosterols and tocopherols (vitamin E) (Table 2), these by-products are also composed of anti-nutritional compounds. Indeed, they contain a high amount of fiber and procyanidins (i.e., condensed tannins) and, in a lower quantity, phytic acid [2]. The highest proportions of dietary fiber (74% wt.), mostly composed of hemicelluloses and covered in a whitish bloom (a dusting of wild yeasts and bacteria) [37], and polyphenols (i.e., tannins) [38] are located in the grape skin. However, grape stem is woody and fully composed of tannins, containing more than 50% of total polysaccharides and, thus, representing an economically attractive source of fiber material [39]. However, depending on the dose and treatment of grape by-products included in animal feed, dietary fiber and polyphenolic compounds can maintain or improve pig [40,41,42] or poultry [2] growth performance and health. In fact, fiber increases intestinal peristalsis and acts as a buffer and a prebiotic that stimulates the development of beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract [2], whereas polyphenols can act as antioxidants, antimicrobials, and immunomodulators [20,40,41,42,43,44,45].
Enzyme supplementation or pre-treatment methods, such as fermentation [2], polyethylene glycol treatment [46,47], steam explosion, and amination are possible solutions to release non-starch polysaccharides or linked tannins from grape by-product cell walls and biomass, thereby increasing their digestibility and bioactive properties [2]. Moreover, phytases might be used to hydrolyze phytate and, thus, release organically bound phosphorus that is unavailable for digestion and absorption by monogastric animals [48]. These treatments could increase the use of grape by-products in animal diets with concomitant benefits on animal production and health, reduction in the overexploitation of conventional feedstuffs, feed costs, and environmental impact derived from the discard or incineration of by-products.
The enzyme supplementation of grape by-products is scarcely studied and has controversial results, since the outcome depends on the by-product dose [2]. For instance, the ability of a carbohydrase complex, and especially tannase, to degrade polymeric procyanidin structures into monomeric and dimeric residues of catechin when acting on 5% and 10% of grape pomace was demonstrated, but the antimicrobial effect of these phenolic compounds against Clostridium perfringens in the intestine of broiler chickens was only present with 5% of substrate [49]. However, the activity of exogenous enzymes in the context of pre-treatments, such as fermentation, or in combination with polyethylene glycol, has been applied more and was shown to increase the antioxidant and antimicrobial bioactivities of grape compounds and hinder anti-nutritional effects [2]. Particularly, the fermentation process can increase the amount or effectiveness of bioactive polysaccharides, polyphenols, or mannoproteins [2]. Grape seed fermented with Aspergillus niger, which produces several enzymes such as amylase, protease, xylanase, cellulase, and lipase, was shown to modulate intestinal microbiota of broiler chickens causing an increase in beneficial Lactobacillus and a decrease in Staphylococcus aureus [20]. This process was also efficient in the bioconversion of grape pomace, stimulating both antioxidant (increase in serum catalase level) and microbial modulation (decrease in C. perfringens) effects of grape-derived compounds [44]. Moreover, the pre-treatment of 10% red grape pomace with polyethylene glycol, which is a strong tannin-binding agent [50], and a cellulolytic enzyme mixture was shown to ameliorate the anti-nutritional effects of condensed tannins [46]. In addition, Van Niekerk and Mnisi [47] reported a partial inactivation of grape pomace condensed tannins with polyethylene glycol, without affecting the health status of broiler chickens. Concerning the hydrolysis of phytate phosphorus, few studies evaluated the activity of phytase in grape by-products, whether using enzymes naturally present in the substrate [48] or biosynthesized by A. niger during a fermentation process [51]. This might be due to the residual amounts of phytic acid usually present in the by-products [48,52] and an inhibition of fermentation by phenolic compounds, such as resveratrol and anthocyanins, with anti-fungal activities [52].
The amination nd steam explosion treatments have not been exploited for grape by-products, although they are known to increase the digestibility of fibrous cell walls in high-fiber feedstuffs [2]. Amination breaks down hemicellulose and lignocellulose and enhances available nitrogen and soluble sugar contents by using chemical compounds (e.g., ammonia), whereas steam explosion is also effective as a lignocellulose material treatment through the application of high temperature and pressure, but it does not increase nitrogen content [53,54]. Even though steam explosion has more advantages than amination, since it is cost-effective, does not use chemicals, and has low energy expenditure [2], both methods could be used for delignification of cell walls in grape pomace, solving the problem of the high level of lignification of this by-product that compromises monogastric animals’ digestibility.
Table
Table 1. Metabolizable energy, protein content, amino acid profile, and carbohydrate content of grape pomace and grape seed (values are expressed on a dry weight basis, w/dw, hyphenated values are ranges).
Table 1. Metabolizable energy, protein content, amino acid profile, and carbohydrate content of grape pomace and grape seed (values are expressed on a dry weight basis, w/dw, hyphenated values are ranges).
ItemGrape Pomace 1Grape Seed 2
Moisture (%)3.39–10.2 (7.2)4.95–7.60 (5.71)
Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg)5.1–8.7 (6.7)4.7–6.9 (5.9)
Crude protein (%)8.9–13.9 (12.1)6.0–16.7 (11.2)
Amino Acid Profile (% Total Amino Acids)
Alanine 3.3–5.4 (4.2)2.3–7.4 (5.6)
Arginine 6.2–8.0 (7.2)6.1–8.2 (7.3)
Aspartic acid 5.6–8.4 (7.1) 35.0–8.4 (7.1)
Cystine/Cysteine 0.06–0.39 (0.18)2.4–2.5 (2.5)
Glutamic acid 9.0–13.6 (11.5) 43.6–30.3 (18.9)
Glycine 6.1–6.3 (6.2)3.5–16.0 (10.2)
Histidine 2.8–4.0 (3.2)2.3–3.4 (2.9)
Isoleucine 2.9–4.8 (3.5)2.5–3.5 (3.1)
Leucine 5.2–7.7 (5.9)2.7–5.8 (4.8)
Lysine2.3–8.3 (4.5)3.9–5.3 (4.5)
Methionine 0.51–1.4 (0.76)3.5–3.6 (3.5)
Phenylalanine4.5–5.1 (4.7)2.6–12.2 (5.4)
Proline 4.8–8.8 (5.9)2.7–6.8 (4.8)
Serine 3.6–5.4 (4.3)4.9–6.9 (5.9)
Threonine 5.3–33.1 (21.7)3.2–5.0 (4.0)
Tryptophan n.a. 54.7–5.4 (5.0)
Tyrosine 3.0–4.1 (3.6)1.7–6.1 (3.4)
Valine 3.5–6.0 (4.3)3.2–5.0 (4.1)
Crude Carbohydrates (%)
Crude fiber14.3–74.5 (38.9)45.8–47.4 (46.6)
ADF32.3–48.4 (40.4)ND
TDF/NDF40.9–59.1 (48.8)40.8–58.2 (47.7)
SDF2.4–9.8 (6.1)ND-79.9
ADL/Lignin18.2–42.5 (29.8)ND
Sugar (%)2.1–14.2 (6.4)ND
ADF, acid detergent fiber; TDF, total dietary fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; SDF, soluble dietary fibe; ADL, acid detergent lignin; ND, not detected. Supporting literature: 1 Alameldin [55]; Atalay [56]; Beres et al. [57]; Chikwanha et al. [28]; Ebrahimzadeh et al. [58]; Ebrahimzadeh et al. [59]; Erinle et al. [45]; Goñi et al. [18]; Gülcü et al. [60]; Gungor et al. [44]; Hosseini-Vashan et al. [61]; Jonathan and Mnisi [62]; Leal et al. [29]; Llobera and Cañellas [63]; Mirzaei-Aghsaghali et al. [64]; Pérez Cid et al. [32]; Valiente et al. [65]; Vlaicu et al. [66]; Winkler et al. [67]; Yi et al. [68]. 2 García-Rodríguez et al. [69]; Goñ et al. [70]; Karaman et al. [71]; Milićević et al. [26]; Pérez Cid et al. [32]; Spanghero et al. [72]; Tangolar et al. [73]; Tangolar et al. [74]; Yokotsuka and Singleton [75]. 3 Includes minor amounts of asparagine. 4 Includes minor amounts of glutamine. 5 n.a., not available.
Table
Table 2. Lipid content and fatty acid profile, and ash, mineral, vitamin E, and phenolic compound content of the main grape by-products (values are expressed on a dry weight basis, w/dw, hyphenated values are ranges).
Table 2. Lipid content and fatty acid profile, and ash, mineral, vitamin E, and phenolic compound content of the main grape by-products (values are expressed on a dry weight basis, w/dw, hyphenated values are ranges).
ItemGrape Pomace 1Grape Seed 2Grape-Seed Oil 3
Crude fat (%)2.12–13.5 (7.9)4.82–20.7 (12.9)-
Fatty Acid Profile (% Total Fatty Acids)
16:012.0–18.0 (15.5)7.61–10.0 (8.72)6.50–9.70 (8.26)
18:04.31–7.95 (6.18)3.14–4.96 (3.87)2.84–7.30 (4.49)
20:00.57–0.84 (0.71)0.04–0.10 (0.07)0.14–0.16 (0.15)
16:1n-70.05–0.10 (0.08)0.07–0.32 (0.17)0.08
18:1n-912.2–28.1 (20.7)13.6–22.9 (18.3)14.3–26.5 (20.4)
20:10.03–0.04 (0.04)0.03–0.17 (0.09)0.00–0.97 (0.39)
18:2n-643.2–62.7 (52.1)62.5–73.8 (67.9)60.1–74.7 (66.0)
18:3n-30.12–2.80 (1.00)0.21–0.35 (0.29)0.00–0.87 (0.42)
SFA20.6–21.8 (21.2)12.0–15.1 (13.3)10.4–11.7 (13.1)
cis-MUFA14.3–15.4 (16.5)18.2–23.3 (20.0)14.8–18.7 (16.7)
PUFA60.9–64.4 (62.7)62.9–69.5 (66.6)68.3–74.9 (71.6)
n-3 PUFA1.70–2.80 (2.25)0.16–0.35 (0.27)0.20
n-6 PUFA58.1–62.7 (60.4)62.5–69.2 (66.3)74.7
Ash (%)2.4–23.7 (6.9)2.60–20.1 (13.0)
Mineral composition
Macrominerals (g/kg)
Ca3.20–4.70 (4.00)4.80–7.90 (6.95)-
K8.99–33.1 (20.3)3.30–8.91 (5.05)-
Mg0.80–1.32 (1.08)1.30–1.87 (1.61)-
P2.4–23.8 (13.7)0.83–29.6 (9.12)-
Microminerals (mg/kg)
Al46.8–496 (201) 40.78-
As0.11–0.79 (0.33) 40.0019-
Cd0.004–0.8 (0.12) 40.0009-
Cu12.4–387 (115)7.27–28.0 (13.5)-
Fe94.3–109 (103)17.3–54.0 (28.5)-
Hg0.012–0.022 (0.017) 50.006–0.016 (0.012)-
Mn16.2–60.0 (27.6)11.1–27.5 (18.3)-
Ni8.7 40.076
Pb0.02–26.2 (3.79) 40.001–0.16 (0.068)-
Zn11.7–18.8 (14.6)12.3–26.9 (16.1)-
Vitamin E Homologues (mg/kg)
α-Tocopherol3.3–6.4 (4.9)2.99–3.35 (3.18)162–578 (430)
β-Tocopherol2.3–6.7 (3.8)2.55–2.73 (2.66)-
γ-Tocopherol3.8–9.8 (6.9)8.48–12.8 (10.9)20.0
δ-Tocopherol1.9–2.2 (2.0)ND-3.041.00
Phenolic compounds
Total anthocyanin (mg/g)0.53–3.4 (1.6)ND-
Total flavonoids (mg CE/g)15.4–26.9 (21.0)34.6–36.7 (35.8)-
Total phenols12.3–58.9 (27.9) 748.0–120 (93.7) 6,7
261–363 (312) 8		-
Total tannins96.9–139 (114) 9125–127 (126) 9
33.9–56.3 (45.1) 8		-
SFA, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; GAE, gallic acid equivalents; TAE, tannic acid equivalents; CE, catechin equivalents; ND, not detected. Supporting literature: 1 Alameldin [55]; Beres et al. [57]; Bustamante et al. [27]; Ebrahimzadeh et al. [59]; Erinle et al. [45]; Goñi et al. [18]; Gülcü et al. [60]; Gungor et al. [44]; Hosseini-Vashan et al. [61]; Jonathan and Mnisi [62]; Kasapidou et al. [76]; Leal et al. [29]; Llobera and Cañellas [63]; Pérez Cid et al. [32]; Vlaicu et al. [66]; Yi et al. [68]. 2 Goñi et al. [70]; Gülcü et al. [60]; Gungor et al. [20]; Iuga and Mironeasa [15]; Karaman et al. [71]; Milićević et al. [26]; Pérez Cid et al. [32]; Silva et al. [77]; Tangolar et al. [73]; Yokotsuka and Singleton [75]. 3 Baydar and Akkurt [78]; Bravi et al. [79]; Duba and Fiori [80]; Fernandes et al. [81]; Karaman et al. [71]; Orsavova et al. [82]. 4 Values were detected in grape stem. 5 Values were detected in grape skin. 6 More than 99.5% of the total phenols are flavonoids. 7 Values are expressed as mg GAE/g. 8 Values are expressed as mg epicatechin equivalents/g. 9 Values are expressed as mg TAE/g.

4. Effect of Dietary Grape By-Products on Production Performance of Monogastric Animals

The literature review on the influence of dietary grape by-products on growth performance parameters of monogastric species is presented in Table 3 and Table 4. The studies herein presented used grape by-products at up to 10% feed with variable effects for pigs and poultry. In general, although different concentrations and experimental periods were reported, dietary grape by-products did not impair or even improved growth performance with an increase in average daily gain (ADG) in pigs, with positive results for poultry when added in low amounts (<3% feed) in the diet (Figure 1). The effects on animal growth performance were mostly attributed to the bioactive properties of grape by-products compounds (e.g., polyphenols), which include prevention of oxidative stress, as well as immune, microbiota, and gut morphology modulation, in pigs [40,41,42,83] and poultry [20,43,44,45]. For instance, Hao et al. [40] and Fang et al. [41] showed that procyanidins added at up to 1.5 and 1% in piglet diets increased glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities in the serum and liver, respectively. Fang et al. [41] reported an increase in serum immunoglobulins, interleukins, and complements caused by these compounds. In addition, polyphenols could improve the disease resistance in piglets by enhancing the proportion of beneficial intestinal bacteria (e.g., Lactobacillus sp., Olsenella sp., Selenomonas sp.) [42] and decreasing the incidence of diarrhea [40,41]. The bioactive compounds were also responsible for an increase in intestinal villus height/crypt depth ratio when grape pomace was fed at 5% to piglets [42]. This bioactivity might explain the increase in average daily gain (ADG) and decrease in feed conversion ratio (FCR) [41] or the ameliorated effects [40,42] on growth performance in piglets fed grape by-products.
Similar bioactivities of grape compounds were detected in poultry, but the outcomes were shown to be dependent on by-product dose, treatment, and type. Indeed, 1.5% of grape pomace fed to broiler chickens increased serum glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase levels, had no effect on intestinal bacteria count, and enhanced ileum lamina thickness. On the other hand, 1.5% of fermented grape pomace increased serum catalase, decreased cecal C. perfringens, and did not change ileal morphology [44]. Furthermore, Viveros et al. [43] reported an increase in ileal Lactobacillus with 0.72% of grape-seed extract, and an increment in Enterococcus and decrease in Clostridium with grape-seed extract and 6% of grape pomace fed to broilers. Grape pomace increased intestinal villus height/crypt depth ratio, but an opposite effect occurred when feeding grape-seed extract. Additionally, Erinle et al. [45] found an increase in beneficial Lactobacillus and improvement in gut morphology in broilers fed 2.5% of grape pomace. Overall, the bioactivity of grape compounds was variably associated with an increase in final body weight [44] and ADG [20] and decrease in FCR [43].

4.1. Pigs

The effect of dietary incorporation of grape by-products on pig growth performance is mostly dependent on animal growth stage and by-product dose on a dry basis. In general, lower concentrations of grape by-products had fewer effects on growth performance, although depending on the concentrations applied and on the age of the animal. For instance, considering animals with similar weights (4.8–19.3 kg), pigs fed 9% of grape pomace had an increase in ADG during all experiments, while those fed 5% suffered no change in ADG (Table 3). The piglets fed 3% of the by-product improved their growth performance only during the growing stage (36–70 days) possibly due to increased digestibility [84]. Beside the differences in trial conditions, the pre-treatment of grape pomace should be considered, since the by-product used in the study by Yan and Kim [84] was submitted to a fermentation process, and, thus, contained a high phenolic content (62.1 g/mg). Moreover, Kafantaris et al. [85] observed that 9% of grape pomace fed to piglets for 30 days increased ADG, without affecting average daily feed intake (ADFI) and FCR. In growing-finishing pigs, Trombetta et al. [86] reported no effects on ADG and carcass traits with 3.5 and 7% of grape pomace. Additionally, the supplementation of 5% of flax meal and 1% of grape seeds did not affect ADG and FCR, although increased ADFI [66]. A lack of a significant effect of grape-seed extract on these parameters was also observed when piglets were fed 0.015% of the by-product [83]. However, a high dose of grape by-product might not always influence growth performance in pigs, since piglets born from sows fed with grape pomace (25% feed) and fed with the same ration before weaning, showed no difference in ADG and FCR [87]. Even though the results obtained across studies are variable, the increase in ADG demonstrated in some reports should be underlined, since it is a promising effect for animal production.
Table
Table 3. Literature review on the effects of dietary inclusion of grape by-products on production performance of pigs.
Table 3. Literature review on the effects of dietary inclusion of grape by-products on production performance of pigs.
Grape By-ProductLevel in the Diet (% Dry Weight) and Experiment DurationAnimal and Initial Weight/AgeMain FindingsReferences
Grape pomace (fermented)3% for 105 days Pigs with 19.3 kg No effect on ADFI, final body weight, ADG, FCR, and longissimus muscle area
Increase in ADG (36–70 days)		Yan and Kim [84]
Grape pomace5% for 36 daysPiglets with 10.7 kgIncrease in ADFI (d16–36 and overall period)
No effect on ADG and FCR		Chedea et al. [88]
9% for 30 days 20-day-old piglets with 4.8 kgNo effect on ADFI and FCR
Increase in final body weight and ADG		Kafantaris et al. [85]
5% for 24 days Fattening-finishing pigsNo effect on ADG
and ADFI		Taranu et al. [89]
3.5 and 7% for 86 days180-day-old castrated males and female pigs with 48.6 kg No effect on ADG, hot carcass yield, loin area, and backfat thicknessTrombetta et al. [86]
5% for 28 days28-day-old pigletsNo effect on ADG, ADFI, and FCRWang et al. [42]
Grape pomace (spent grapes)Replacement of 25% maize for 63 daysPregnant sows (3 weeks up to weaning) with 180.5 kg and their piglets No effect on final body weight, ADFI (sows and piglets), ADG, and FCR (piglets)Tripura et al. [87]
Grape-seed extract (procyanidins)0.04, 0.07, and 1% for 28 daysPiglets (mixed sex) with 8.4 kgIncrease in ADG and decrease in FCR (0.04% dosage)Fang et al. [41]
0.5, 1, and 1.5% for 28 days21-day-old piglets with 6.99 kgNo effect on ADG, ADFI and FCRHao et al. [40]
Grape-seed extract0.015% for 56 daysPiglets (mixed sex) with 6.9 kgDecrease in final body weight (d13) in relation to in-feed antibiotic treatment
No effect on ADFI, ADG, and FCR		Rajković et al. [83]
Grape-seed and grape-marc extracts1% replacing wheat for 28 days5-week-old pigs with 10 kgNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, and ADG
Decrease in FCR (tendency)		Fiesel et al. [90]
1% for 28 days6-week-old pigs with 12 kgNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, and ADG
Decrease in FCR 		Gessner et al. [91]
Grape-seed cake5% for 24 days Pigs with 75.5 kgNo effect on ADG
and ADFI		Taranu et al. [92]
Grape seeds8% for 30 daysPiglets with 9.13 kgNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, ADG, and FCRGrosu et al. [93]
1% of grape seeds and 5% of flax meal from 65.3 to 105 kg Pigs with 60.3 kgNo effect on final body weight, ADG, and FCR
Increase in ADFI		Vlaicu et al. [66]
8% for 30 days Piglets with 9.13 kgNo effect on final body weight and ADGTaranu et al. [94]; Taranu et al. [95]
ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; FCR, feed conversion ratio.

4.2. Poultry

Poultry feeding with grape by-products showed both dosage- and form-dependent effects, and, thus, they are normally incorporated at up to 6–10% feed (dry basis) in the diet [2]. Indeed, the inclusion of high levels of grape by-products is normally associated with a considerable amount of anti-nutritional compounds, such as fiber and polymeric polyphenols (e.g., proanthocyanidins), which can reduce the digestion and absorption of nutrients, and ultimately impact negatively on body weight gain. On the other hand, low levels of by-products (<6% feed) have been related to beneficial bioactive effects, such as modulation of gut morphology and microbiota and antioxidant activity, mostly due to the presence of polyphenols [2]. For instance, feeding broilers with 2.5% of grape pomace increased the relative abundance of beneficial Bacteroides and Lactobacillus genera and reduced the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio in the cecum [45]. Erinle et al. [45] also demonstrated an increase in intestinal villus height: crypt depth ratio caused by the grape by-product. In addition, Abu Hafsa and Ibrahim [96] reported that 1–4% of grape seeds increased Lactobacillus and decreased detrimental Streptococcus spp. and Escherichia coli in the ileum of broilers. Similarly, Viveros et al. [43] found an increase in Lactobacillus sp. in the ileal contents of broiler chicks fed 0.72% of grape-seed extract. Dietary grape seeds at up to 4% can help prevent oxidative stress by increasing the activity of several enzymes with antioxidant activity in the plasma, such as superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase, and, at the same time, reduce thiobarbituric-acid-reactive substances [96]. Overall, the bioactivity of grape by-products contributes to the integrity of intestinal barrier function and prevention of diseases in the gut, thereby enhancing poultry growth [2].
The inclusion of grape pomace at 6% in broiler chicken diets showed no effects [97] or a slight improvement [43] on growth performance. However, a negative impact on performance was observed when the same dose of grape-seed extract [43] or unfermented grape skin [38] was used, which was due to the presence of polyphenols, mostly purified in the case of grape seed. Feeding broilers with a lower dose grape seed (4%), which corresponds to 11.14 g polyphenols/kg feed [96], could still impair growth performance by decreasing final body weight and ADG and increasing FCR. Similarly, a linear increase in FCR over the growing and finishing periods of ducklings was observed with 0.01 and 0.02% of grape-seed extract providing 0.005–0.015 g polyphenols/kg feed, although an increase in final body weight and ADG was reported [98].
For a level of by-products higher than 6%, only Kumanda et al. [99] reported beneficial effects on broiler growth performance with a decrease in FCR when incorporating 7.5% of grape pomace in the diet. Other studies showed either no effect [59,100] or an impairment (decrease in final body weight, ADG, and hot carcass weight) [46] of animal performance with 10% grape pomace.
On the other hand, studies showed that the inclusion of grape seed or grape pomace at up to 3% feed (dry basis) had a positive impact on animal growth performance. Indeed, 0.5% of fermented or unfermented grape seed fed to broilers increased their final body weight and ADG [20] and even grape-seed extract at 2% feed led to similar results with also a reduction in FCR [96]. In addition, 1.5% of fermented grape pomace could increase the final body weight of broilers [44], whereas 2.5% of grape pomace raised ADG in the first two weeks of the trial, even though no effect was observed in the overall period [45].
The fermentation of grape by-products was reported to hinder the negative effects on growth performance caused by the presence of anti-nutritional compounds [2]. However, this occurrence was mostly shown for low levels of by-products in broiler diets. For instance, Nardoia et al. [38] observed that the pre-treatment reverted the increase in FCR found with unfermented grape skin at 3%. Moreover, Gungor et al. [44] reported a beneficial effect on animal growth with the fermentation of 1.5% grape pomace, while the same was not found with the unfermented source.
Table
Table 4. Literature review on the effects of dietary inclusion of grape by-products on production performance of poultry.
Table 4. Literature review on the effects of dietary inclusion of grape by-products on production performance of poultry.
Grape By-ProductLevel in the Diet (% Dry Weight) and Experiment DurationAnimal and Initial Weight/AgeMain FindingsReferences
Grape pomace0.5, 0.75, and 1% for 28 days3-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on ADG, ADFI, FCR, and carcass weightAditya et al. [101]
1.5, 3, and 6% from 21 to 42 days21-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on growth performanceBrenes et al. [97]
5 and 10% for 21 days1-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on final body weight, ADFI, and FCRChamorro et al. [100]
0.045, 0.035, and 0.025% body weight for 40 days1-day-old mixed-sex broiler chicksNo effect on final body weightDupak et al. [102]
10% (combined or not with 0.1 or 0.05% tannase) for 42 days1-day-old male broiler chicks Decrease in body weight and ADG on d10Ebrahimzadeh et al. [103]
5, 7.5, and 10% for 42 days1-day-old male broiler chicks No effect on growth performanceEbrahimzadeh et al. [59]
2.5% for 42 days1-day-old mixed-sex broiler chicksNo effect on ADG and FCR but increase in ADFI (overall)
Increase in ADG and ADFI (d1–14)		Erinle et al. [45]
2, 4, and 6% for 84 days42-day-old quails No effect on ADFI and FCR and egg production
Egg weight linearly increases with dosage		Fróes et al. [104]
0.5, 1.5, and 3% for 3 weeks 1-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on ADG, ADFI, and FCRGoñi et al. [18]
2, 4, and 6% for 42 days1-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on ADG and FCR
Increase in ADFI (2, 4 and 6% dosages)		Hosseini-Vashan et al. [61]
1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0% for 77 days5-week-old male cockerelsNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, ADG, and FCRJonathan and Mnisi [62]
4 and 6% for 84 days80-week-old laying hens No effect on final body weight, ADFI, FCR, and egg production
Increase in egg weight (4% dosage) and liver weight.		Kara et al. [105]
2.5, 4.5, 5.5, and 7.5% from 14 to 42 days11-day-old broiler chicksDecrease in ADFI and FCR (5.5 and 7.5% dosage)
No effect on ADG		 Kumanda et al. [99]
10% from 14 to 42 days11-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on ADFI but
decrease in final body weight, ADG, and hot carcass weight (untreated grape pomace)
No effect on growth performance (treated grape pomace with PEG or enzyme supplementation)		Kumanda and Mlambo [46]
1.5% for 25 days10-day-old female broilersNo effect on final body weight and FCRLichovnikova et al. [106]
2.5% for 42 days1-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, and FCRMavrommatis et al. [107]
1 and 2% for 40 days1-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on final body weight and ADG
Decrease in body weight (1% dosage on d14) and FCR (non-statistical analysis)		Pascariu et al. [108]
1, 2, and 3% for 35 days74-week-old laying hensIncrease in ADFI (1–3% dosage) and egg production (1% dosage)
Non-significant increase in FCR (3% dosage)		Reis et al. [109]
3 and 6% for 28 days50-week-old laying hensDecrease in ADFI, egg weight (3 and 6% dosage), and FCR (6% dosage)
No effect on egg production		Romero et al. [110]
6% for 21 days1-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on final body weight and ADFI
Decrease in FCR		Viveros et al. [43]
Grape pomace
(polyphenolic extract)		15 mL/L (drinking water) for 40 days1-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on final body weight and ADG
Decrease in body weight on d28
Increase in FCR (non-statistical analysis)		Pascariu et al. [108]
Grape pomace
(fermented and unfermented)		1.5% for 42 days1-day-old female broiler chicks with 37.3 gNo effect on ADFI and FCR
Increase in final body weight (fermented grape pomace)		Gungor et al. [44]
Grape seeds
(fermented and unfermented)		0.5% for 42 days1-day-old female broiler chicks with 37.3 gNo effect on ADFI and FCR
Increase in final body weight and ADG		Gungor et al. [20]
Grape seeds0.5, 1, and 1.5% for 84 days44-week-old laying hensNo effect on ADFI and FCR
Decrease in egg weight (1.5% dosage)
Increase in egg production		Kaya et al. [111]
0.5 and 1% for 40 days1-day-old broiler chicksIncrease in final body weight (0.5% dosage)
Decrease in body weight (1% dosage, d7–28) and FCR (non-statistical analysis)
No effect on ADG		Pascariu et al. [108]
2% for 5 weeks14-day-old broilers with 312 gNo effect on final body weight, ADG, ADFI, and FCRTurcu et al. [112]
Grape-seed extract1, 2, and 4% for 42 days1 day-old mixed-sex broiler chicks with 44.1 gNo effect on ADFI
Increase (1 and 2% dosage) or decrease (4% dosage) in final body weight and ADG
Decrease (2% dosage) or increase (4% dosage) in FCR 		Abu Hafsa and Ibrahim [96]
0.01 and 0.02% for 42 days1 day-old female Pekin ducklings with 52.0 gNo effect on ADFI and FCR
Increase in final body weight, ADG and carcass weight
Increase in FCR		Ao and Kim [98]
0.0025, 0.025, 0.25, and 0.5% for 21 days1-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on ADFI
Increase in FCR and decrease in final body weight (0.5% dosage)		Chamorro et al. [113]
0.0125, 0.025, 0.050, 0.100, and 0.200% for 42 days 1-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on growth performanceFarahat et al. [114]
1% for 36 weeks and 2% for the last 2 weeks4-week-old female broiler breedersDecrease in final body weight and back fat thickness and increase in egg weight (2% dosage)Grandhaye et al. [115]
0.015, 0.03, and 0.045% for 42 days (heat stress at d29–42)1-day-old broiler chicksIncrease in ADFI (0.03% dosage, d1–28)
Increase in ADG (0.015 and 0.03% dosage on d1–28; 0.03% on d29–42 and overall period)
Decrease in FCR (0.03 and 0.045% dosage on d29–42 and overall period) 		Hajati et al. [116]
0.1, 0.2, and 0.4% for 42 days0-day-old broiler chicksNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, ADG, and FCRHuerta et al. [117]
0.0675, 0.1350, and 0.2025 for 84 days44-week-old laying hensNo effect on ADFI and FCR
Decrease in egg weight (0.0675% dosage)
Increase in egg production		Kaya et al. [111]
0.05 and 0.1% for 28 days4-week-old laying hensDecrease in ADFI (0.05 and 0.1%), egg weight, and FCR (0.05% dosage)
No effect on egg production		Romero et al. [110]
0.015% for 48 days25-week-old laying hensNo effect on ADFI
and FCR
Decrease in egg weight		Sun et al. [118]
0.72% for 21 days1-day-old male broiler chicksNo effect on ADFI
Decrease in ADG and, in comparison with antibiotic treatment, increase in FCR		Viveros et al. [43]
Grape seed
(proanthocyanidin extract)		0.0005, 0.0010, 0.0020, 0.0040, and 0.0080% for 15 days (infection with Eimeria tenella)1-day-old broiler chicksIncrease in ADG in comparison with infected control; decrease in ADG relative to noninfected controlWang et al. [119]
0.02 and 0.04% for 21 days1-day-old broiler chicksDecrease in ADFI and FCR
Increase in ADG (0.02% dosage)		Cao et al. [120]
Grape skin
(fermented and unfermented)		3 and 6% for 21 days1-day-old male broiler chicks No effect on ADFI
Decrease in ADG (fermented and unfermented at 6%)
Increase in FCR (fermented at 6% and unfermented at 3 and 6%) 		Nardoia et al. [38]
Grape seed and skin
(polyphenolic extract mixed with L-arginine, L-threonine and L-glutamine)		0.1% (5% grape extract and 95% amino acid mixture) for 35 days (challenge with coccidiosis vaccine on d14) 0-day-old male broiler chicksThe ADFI, final body weight, ADG, and FCR returned to control valuesChalvon-Demersay et al. [121]
Grape stems
(pure phenolic extract)		0.1% for 42 days1-day-old broiler chicks with 44.4 kgNo effect on ADFI, final body weight, and FCRMavrommatis et al. [107]
ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; FCR, feed conversion ratio.

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Grape by-products have several industrial applications, including feed, biofuel, bioenergy, and fertilization/They are valuable feedstuffs due to their richness in nutritional and bioactive compounds, such as dietary fiber and polyphenols, which make them suitable for maintaining or improving animal performance. Indeed, conversely to the anti-nutritional properties found with high amounts of these compounds, low amounts were shown to modulate intestinal morphology and microbiota and stimulate antioxidant capacity, thereby maintaining intestinal health and preventing the occurrence of diseases in monogastric animals. Grape pomace can improve growth performance in pigs, with an increase in ADG, particularly when fed at higher levels (up to 9%). However, in poultry, the effect of grape by-products is more variable, and these sources should not be incorporated in broiler diets at more than 6–10% feed to prevent an impairment of animal growth performance. Forthcoming studies should concentrate their efforts on the optimization of dosages and digestibility of grape by-products for pig and poultry feeding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.C. and J.A.M.P.; data curation; M.M.C.; formal analysis, M.M.C.; investigation, M.M.C., P.A.L., C.M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.C.; writing—review and editing, M.M.C., J.M.P. and J.A.M.P.; funding acquisition, J.A.M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; Lisbon, Portugal) grants PTDC/CAL-ZOO/30238/2017, UIDB/00276/2020 to CIISA, and LA/P/0059/2020 to AL4AnimalS.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Henchion, M.; Moloney, A.P.; Hyland, J.; Zimmermann, J.; McCarthy, S. Review: Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal 2021, 15, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Erinle, T.J.; Adewole, D.I. Fruit pomaces-their nutrient and bioactive components, effects on growth and health of poultry species, and possible optimization techniques. Anim. Nutr. 2022, 9, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Skuras, D.; Psaltopoulos, D. A broad overview of the main problems derived from climate change that will affect agricultural production in the Mediterranean area. In Building Resilience for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Agriculture Sector; FAO, Ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; pp. 217–260. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bail, S.; Stuebiger, G.; Krist, S.; Unterweger, H.; Buchbauer, G. Characterisation of various grape seed oils by volatile compounds, triacylglycerol composition, total phenols and antioxidant capacity. Food Chem. 2008, 108, 1122–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Beres, C.; Costa, G.N.S.; Cabezudo, I.; da Silva-James, N.K.; Teles, A.S.C.; Cruz, A.P.G.; Mellinger-Silva, C.; Tonon, R.V.; Cabral, L.M.C.; Freitas, S.P. Towards integral utilization of grape pomace from winemaking process: A review. Waste Manag. 2017, 68, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Naziri, E.; Nenadis, N.; Mantzouridou, F.T.; Tsimidou, M.Z. Valorization of the major agrifood industrial by-products and waste from Central Macedonia (Greece) for the recovery of compounds for food applications. Food Res. Int. 2014, 65, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ruggieri, L.; Cadena, E.; Martínez-Blanco, J.; Gasol, C.M.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell, X.; Gea, T.; Sort, X.; Sánchez, A. Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanish wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the composting process. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 830–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. OIV. State of the World Vine and Wine Sector 2021; OIV: Paris, France, 2022; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  9. FAO. Transforming Food and Agriculture to Achieve the SDGs: 20 Interconnected Actions to Guide Decision-Makers; FAO: Italy, Rome, 2018; pp. 4–71. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dávila, I.; Robles, E.; Egüés, I.; Labidi, J.; Gullón, P. The Biorefinery Concept for the Industrial Valorization of Grape Processing By-Products. In Handbook of Grape Processing By-Products; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 29–53. [Google Scholar]
  11. Socas-Rodríguez, B.; Álvarez-Rivera, G.; Valdés, A.; Ibáñez, E.; Cifuentes, A. Food by-products and food wastes: Are they safe enough for their valorization? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 114, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ferrari, V.; Taffarel, S.R.; Espinosa-Fuentes, E.; Oliveira, M.L.S.; Saikia, B.K.; Oliveira, L.F.S. Chemical evaluation of by-products of the grape industry as potential agricultural fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brenes, A.; Viveros, A.; Chamorro, S.; Arija, I. Use of polyphenol-rich grape by-products in monogastric nutrition. A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 211, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Spigno, G.; Marinoni, L.; Garrido, G.D. State of the art in grape processing by-products. In Handbook of Grape Processing By-Products; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  15. Iuga, M.; Mironeasa, S. Potential of grape byproducts as functional ingredients in baked goods and pasta. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2473–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yu, J.; Ahmedna, M. Functional components of grape pomace: Their composition, biological properties and potential applications. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ruberto, G.; Renda, A.; Daquino, C.; Amico, V.; Spatafora, C.; Tringali, C.; Tommasi, N.D. Polyphenol constituents and antioxidant activity of grape pomace extracts from five Sicilian red grape cultivars. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Goñi, I.; Brenes, A.; Centeno, C.; Viveros, A.; Saura-Calixto, F.; Rebolé, A.; Arija, I.; Estevez, R. Effect of dietary grape pomace and vitamin E on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and susceptibility to meat lipid oxidation in chickens. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 508–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kithama, M.; Hassan, Y.I.; Guo, K.; Kiarie, E.; Diarra, M.S. The enzymatic digestion of pomaces from some fruits for value-added feed applications in animal production. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gungor, E.; Altop, A.; Erener, G. Effect of raw and fermented grape seed on growth performance, antioxidant capacity, and cecal microflora in broiler chickens. Animal 2021, 15, 100194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lau, D.W.; King, A.J. Pre- and post-mortem use of grape seed extract in dark poultry meat to inhibit development of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 1602–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yilmaz, Y.; Toledo, R.T. Major flavonoids in grape seeds and skins:  antioxidant capacity of catechin, epicatechin, and gallic acid. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Felhi, S.; Baccouch, N.; Ben Salah, H.; Smaoui, S.; Allouche, N.; Gharsallah, N.; Kadri, A. Nutritional constituents, phytochemical profiles, in vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of various solvent extracts from grape seeds (Vitis vinifera L.). Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 25, 1537–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Volpe, M.G.; La Cara, F.; Volpe, F.; De Mattia, A.; Serino, V.; Petitto, F.; Zavalloni, C.; Limone, F.; Pellecchia, R.; De Prisco, P.P.; et al. Heavy metal uptake in the enological food chain. Food Chem. 2009, 117, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Edelstein, M.; Ben-Hur, M. Heavy metals and metalloids: Sources, risks and strategies to reduce their accumulation in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 234, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Milićević, T.; Urošević, M.A.; Relić, D.; Vuković, G.; Škrivanj, S.; Popović, A. Bioavailability of potentially toxic elements in soil-grapevine (leaf, skin, pulp and seed) system and environmental and health risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 528–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bustamante, M.A.; Moral, R.; Paredes, C.; Pérez-Espinosa, A.; Moreno-Caselles, J.; Pérez-Murcia, M.D. Agrochemical characterisation of the solid by-products and residues from the winery and distillery industry. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chikwanha, O.C.; Raffrenato, E.; Muchenje, V.; Musarurwa, H.T.; Mapiye, C. Varietal differences in nutrient, amino acid and mineral composition and in vitro rumen digestibility of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomace from the Cape Winelands vineyards in South Africa and impact of preservation techniques. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 118, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leal, C.; Costa, C.M.; Barros, A.I.R.N.A.; Gouvinhas, I. Assessing the relationship between the phenolic content and elemental composition of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) stems. Waste Biomass Valorization 2021, 12, 1313–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Nisco, M.; Manfra, M.; Bolognese, A.; Sofo, A.; Scopa, A.; Tenore, G.C.; Pagano, F.; Milite, C.; Russo, M.T. Nutraceutical properties and polyphenolic profile of berry skin and wine of Vitis vinifera L. (cv. Aglianico). Food Chem. 2013, 140, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Canizo, B.V.; Escudero, L.B.; Pellerano, R.G.; Wuilloud, R.G. Data mining approach based on chemical composition of grape skin for quality evaluation and traceability prediction of grapes. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 162, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pérez Cid, B.; Muinelo Martínez, M.; Vázquez Vázquez, F.A.; Río Segade, S. Content and bioavailability of trace elements and nutrients in grape pomace. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 6713–6721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Iqbal, Z.; Abbas, F.; Ibrahim, M.; Qureshi, T.I.; Gul, M.; Mahmood, A. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in Brassica plants and their impact on animal health in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 22768–22778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Järup, L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Codex Alimentarius Commission. International Food Standards. General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed CXS 193-1995; FAO/WHO: Italy, Rome, 2019; pp. 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kumar, B.; Smita, K.; Cumbal Flores, L. Plant mediated detoxification of mercury and lead. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S2335–S2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Igartuburu, J.M.; Pando, E.; Rodríguez-Luis, F.; Gil-Serrano, A. Structure of a hemicellulose B fraction in dietary fiber from the seed of grape variety Palomino (Vitis vinifera cv. palomino). J. Nat. Prod. 1998, 61, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Nardoia, M.; Romero, C.; Brenes, A.; Arija, I.; Viveros, A.; Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Chamorro, S. Addition of fermented and unfermented grape skin in broilers’ diets: Effect on digestion, growth performance, intestinal microbiota and oxidative stability of meat. Animal 2020, 14, 1371–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Prozil, S.O.; Costa, E.V.; Evtuguin, D.V.; Cruz Lopes, L.P.; Domingues, M.R.M. Structural characterization of polysaccharides isolated from grape stalks of Vitis vinifera L. Carbohydr. Res. 2012, 356, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hao, R.; Li, Q.; Zhao, J.; Li, H.; Wang, W.; Gao, J. Effects of grape seed procyanidins on growth performance, immune function and antioxidant capacity in weaned piglets. Livest. Sci. 2015, 178, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fang, L.; Li, M.; Zhao, L.; Han, S.; Li, Y.; Xiong, B.; Jiang, L. Dietary grape seed procyanidins suppressed weaning stress by improving antioxidant enzyme activity and mRNA expression in weanling piglets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 1178–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wang, R.; Yu, H.; Fang, H.; Jin, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, J.; Zhou, C.; Li, R.; Wang, J.; Fu, Y.; et al. Effects of dietary grape pomace on the intestinal microbiota and growth performance of weaned piglets. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 74, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Viveros, A.; Chamorro, S.; Pizarro, M.; Arija, I.; Centeno, C.; Brenes, A. Effects of dietary polyphenol-rich grape products on intestinal microflora and gut morphology in broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gungor, E.; Altop, A.; Erener, G. Effect of raw and fermented grape pomace on the growth performance, antioxidant status, intestinal morphology, and selected bacterial species in broiler chicks. Animals 2021, 11, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Erinle, T.J.; Oladokun, S.; MacIsaac, J.; Rathgeber, B.; Adewole, D. Dietary grape pomace—Effects on growth performance, intestinal health, blood parameters, and breast muscle myopathies of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kumanda, C.; Mlambo, V. Valorization of red grape pomace waste using polyethylene glycol and fibrolytic enzymes: Physiological and meat quality responses in broilers. Animals 2019, 9, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Van Niekerk, R.F.; Mnisi, C.M. Polyethylene glycol inactivates red grape pomace condensed tannins for broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2020, 61, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Viveros, A.; Centeno, C.; Brenes, A.; Canales, R.; Lozano, A. Phytase and acid phosphatase activities in plant feedstuffs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 4009–4013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Chamorro, S.; Viveros, A.; Rebolé, A.; Arija, I.; Romero, C.; Alvarez, I.; Rey, A.; Brenes, A. Addition of exogenous enzymes to diets containing grape pomace: Effects on intestinal utilization of catechins and antioxidant status of chickens. Food Res. Int. 2017, 96, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Besharati, M.; Taghizadeh, A. Effect of tannin-binding agents (polyethylene glycol and polyvinylpyrrolidone) supplementation on in vitro gas production kinetics of some grape yield byproducts. ISRN Vet. Sci. 2011, 2011, 780540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Camargo, D.A.; Pereira, M.S.; dos Santos, A.G.; Fleuri, L.F. Isolated and fermented orange and grape wastes: Bromatological characterization and phytase, lipase and protease source. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 77, 102978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sá, A.G.A.; Silva, D.C.d.; Pacheco, M.T.B.; Moreno, Y.M.F.; Carciofi, B.A.M. Oilseed by-products as plant-based protein sources: Amino acid profile and digestibility. Future Foods 2021, 3, 100023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, H.; Liu, L.; Yang, X.; Li, Z. New process of maize stalk amination treatment by steam explosion. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 28, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Iram, A.; Cekmecelioglu, D.; Demirci, A. Optimization of dilute sulfuric acid, aqueous ammonia, and steam explosion as the pretreatments steps for distillers’ dried grains with solubles as a potential fermentation feedstock. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 282, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alameldin, A.K. Comparative study between dietary supplementation of grape pomace and vitamin E as antioxidant on some productive, reproductive and physiological performance of male and female aged inshas strain chickens. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 37, 855–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Atalay, A. Determination of nutritive value and anti-methanogenic potential of Turkish grape pomace using in vitro gas production technique. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2020, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Beres, C.; Freitas, S.P.; Godoy, R.L.d.O.; de Oliveira, D.C.R.; Deliza, R.; Iacomini, M.; Mellinger-Silva, C.; Cabral, L.M.C. Antioxidant dietary fibre from grape pomace flour or extract: Does it make any difference on the nutritional and functional value? J. Funct. Foods 2019, 56, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ebrahimzadeh, S.; Navidshad, B.; Farhoomand, P.; Mirzaei Aghjehgheshlagh, F. The metabolizable energy content and effect of grape pomace with or without tannase enzyme treatment in broiler chickens. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2017, 7, 479–486. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ebrahimzadeh, S.K.; Navidshad, B.; Farhoomand, P.; Mirzaei Aghjehgheshlagh, F. Effects of grape pomace and vitamin E on performance, antioxidant status, immune response, gut morphology and histopathological responses in broiler chickens. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 48, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gülcü, M.; Uslu, N.; Özcan, M.M.; Gökmen, F.; Özcan, M.M.; Banjanin, T.; Gezgin, S.; Dursun, N.; Geçgel, Ü.; Ceylan, D.A.; et al. The investigation of bioactive compounds of wine, grape juice and boiled grape juice wastes. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e13850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hosseini-Vashan, S.J.; Safdari-Rostamabad, M.; Piray, A.H.; Sarir, H. The growth performance, plasma biochemistry indices, immune system, antioxidant status, and intestinal morphology of heat-stressed broiler chickens fed grape (Vitis vinifera) pomace. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 259, 114343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jonathan, O.; Mnisi, C.M. Effect of dietary red grape pomace on growth performance, hematology, serum biochemistry, and meat quality parameters in Hy-line Silver Brown cockerels. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Llobera, A.; Cañellas, J. Dietary fibre content and antioxidant activity of Manto Negro red grape (Vitis vinifera): Pomace and stem. Food Chem. 2007, 101, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mirzaei-Aghsaghali, A.; Maheri-Sis, N.; Mansouri, H.; Razeghi, M.E.; Telli, A.S.; Aghajanzadeh-Golshani, A. Estimation of the nutritive value of grape pomace for ruminant using gas production technique. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 6246–6250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Valiente, C.; Arrigoni, E.; Esteban, R.; Amado, R. Grape pomace as a potential food fiber. J. Food Sci. 1995, 60, 818–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vlaicu, P.A.; Panaite, T.D.; Cornescu, M.G.; Ropota, M.; Olteanu, M.; Drăgotoiu, D. The influence of by-products on the production parameters and nutrient digestibility in fattening pigs diet (60-100 kg). AgroLife Sci. J. 2019, 8, 261–269. [Google Scholar]
  67. Winkler, A.; Weber, F.; Ringseis, R.; Eder, K.; Dusel, G. Determination of polyphenol and crude nutrient content and nutrient digestibility of dried and ensiled white and red grape pomace cultivars. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 69, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Yi, C.; Shi, J.; Kramer, J.; Xue, S.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Ma, Y.; Pohorly, J. Fatty acid composition and phenolic antioxidants of winemaking pomace powder. Food Chem. 2009, 114, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. García-Rodríguez, J.; Ranilla, M.J.; France, J.; Alaiz-Moretón, H. Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and rumen fermentation kinetics of agro-industrial by-products. Animals 2019, 9, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Goñi, I.; Martín, N.; Saura-Calixto, F. In vitro digestibility and intestinal fermentation of grape seed and peel. Food Chem. 2005, 90, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Karaman, S.; Karasu, S.; Tornuk, F.; Toker, O.S.; Geçgel, Ü.; Sagdic, O.; Ozcan, N.; Gül, O. Recovery potential of cold press byproducts obtained from the edible oil industry: Physicochemical, bioactive, and antimicrobial properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 2305–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Spanghero, M.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Robinson, P.H. Chemical composition, including secondary metabolites, and rumen fermentability of seeds and pulp of Californian (USA) and Italian grape pomaces. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 152, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tangolar, S.G.; Ozoğul, Y.; Tangolar, S.; Torun, A. Evaluation of fatty acid profiles and mineral content of grape seed oil of some grape genotypes. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2009, 60, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tangolar, S.; Turan, M.; Tangolar, S.; Ateş, F. Evaluation of amino acid contents and enzyme activities of seeds from Semillon and Carignane wine grape cultivars grown under different irrigation conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 251, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yokotsuka, K.; Singleton, V.L. Grape seed nitrogenous components and possible contribution to wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1996, 47, 268–278. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kasapidou, E.; Sossidou, E.; Zdragas, A.; Papadaki, C.G.V.; Mitliagka, P. Effect of grape pomace supplementation on broiler meat quality characteristics. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2016, 80, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Silva, V.; Igrejas, G.; Falco, V.; Santos, T.P.; Torres, C.; Oliveira, A.M.P.; Pereira, J.E.; Amaral, J.S.; Poeta, P. Chemical composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of phenolic compounds extracted from wine industry by-products. Food Control 2018, 92, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Baydar, N.; Akkurt, M. Oil content and oil quality properties of some grape seeds. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2001, 25, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bravi, M.; Spinoglio, F.; Verdone, N.; Adami, M.; Aliboni, A.; D’Andrea, A.; De Santis, A.; Ferri, D. Improving the extraction of α-tocopherol-enriched oil from grape seeds by supercritical CO2. Optimisation of the extraction conditions. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Duba, K.; Fiori, L. Solubility of grape seed oil in supercritical CO2: Experiments and modeling. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2016, 100, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fernandes, L.; Casal, S.; Cruz, R.; Pereira, J.; Ramalhosa, E. Seed oils of ten traditional Portuguese grape varieties with interesting chemical and antioxidant properties. Food Res. Int. 2013, 50, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Orsavova, J.; Misurcova, L.; Ambrozova, J.V.; Vicha, R.; Mlcek, J. Fatty acids composition of vegetable oils and its contribution to dietary energy intake and dependence of cardiovascular mortality on dietary intake of fatty acids. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 12871–12890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rajković, E.; Schwarz, C.; Tischler, D.; Schedle, K.; Reisinger, N.; Emsenhuber, C.; Ocelova, V.; Roth, N.; Frieten, D.; Dusel, G.; et al. Potential of grape extract in comparison with therapeutic dosage of antibiotics in weaning piglets: Effects on performance, digestibility and microbial metabolites of the ileum and colon. Animals 2021, 11, 2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yan, L.; Kim, I. Effect of dietary grape pomace fermented by Saccharomyces boulardii on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility and meat quality in finishing pigs. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 1763–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kafantaris, I.; Stagos, D.; Kotsampasi, B.; Hatzis, A.; Kypriotakis, A.; Gerasopoulos, K.; Makri, S.; Goutzourelas, N.; Mitsagga, C.; Giavasis, I.; et al. Grape pomace improves performance, antioxidant status, fecal microbiota and meat quality of piglets. Anim. Int. J. Anim. Biosci. 2018, 12, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Trombetta, F.; Fruet, A.P.B.; Stefanello, F.S.; Fonseca, P.A.F.; De Souza, A.N.M.; Tonetto, C.J.; Rosado, A.G.J.; Nörnberg, J.L. Effects of the dietary inclusion of linseed oil and grape pomace on weight gain, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of swine. Int. Food Res. J. 2019, 26, 1741–1749. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tripura, S.K.S.; Tarang, M.; Raghavendran, S.V.; Av, S.M.; Lokhande, S.K. Incorporation of cooked barley residue and spent grapes in the ration of pregnant Large White Yorkshire sows and their piglets. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Chedea, V.S.; Palade, L.M.; Marin, D.E.; Pelmus, R.S.; Habeanu, M.; Rotar, M.C.; Gras, M.A.; Pistol, G.C.; Taranu, I. Intestinal absorption and antioxidant activity of grape pomace polyphenols. Nutrients 2018, 10, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Taranu, I.; Habeanu, M.; Gras, M.; Pistol, G.C.; Lefter, N.; Palade, M.; Ropota, M.; Chedea, V.S.; Marin, D.E. Effect of xenobiotic compounds from grape waste on liver function and oxidative status in pigs. Arch. Zootech. 2017, 20, 5–24. [Google Scholar]
  90. Fiesel, A.; Gessner, D.K.; Most, E.; Eder, K. Effects of dietary polyphenol-rich plant products from grape or hop on pro-inflammatory gene expression in the intestine, nutrient digestibility and faecal microbiota of weaned pigs. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gessner, D.K.; Fiesel, A.; Most, E.; Dinges, J.; Wen, G.; Ringseis, R.; Eder, K. Supplementation of a grape seed and grape marc meal extract decreases activities of the oxidative stress-responsive transcription factors NF-κB and Nrf2 in the duodenal mucosa of pigs. Acta Vet. Scand. 2013, 55, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Taranu, I.; Habeanu, M.; Gras, M.A.; Pistol, G.C.; Lefter, N.; Palade, M.; Ropota, M.; Sanda Chedea, V.; Marin, D.E. Assessment of the effect of grape seed cake inclusion in the diet of healthy fattening-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 102, e30–e42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Grosu, I.A.; Pistol, G.C.; Marin, D.E.; Cişmileanu, A.; Palade, L.M.; Ţăranu, I. Effects of dietary grape seed meal bioactive compounds on the colonic microbiota of weaned piglets with dextran sodium sulfate-induced colitis used as an inflammatory model. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Taranu, I.; Marin, D.E.; Palade, M.; Pistol, G.C.; Chedea, V.S.; Gras, M.A.; Rotar, C. Assessment of the efficacy of a grape seed waste in counteracting the changes induced by aflatoxin B1 contaminated diet on performance, plasma, liver and intestinal tissues of pigs after weaning. Toxicon Off. J. Int. Soc. Toxinology 2019, 162, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Taranu, I.; Hermenean, A.; Bulgaru, C.; Pistol, G.C.; Ciceu, A.; Grosu, I.A.; Marin, D.E. Diet containing grape seed meal by-product counteracts AFB1 toxicity in liver of pig after weaning. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 203, 110899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Abu Hafsa, S.H.; Ibrahim, S.A. Effect of dietary polyphenol-rich grape seed on growth performance, antioxidant capacity and ileal microflora in broiler chicks. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 102, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Brenes, A.; Viveros, A.; Goñi, I.; Centeno, C.; Sáyago-Ayerdy, S.G.; Arija, I.; Saura-Calixto, F. Effect of grape pomace concentrate and vitamin E on digestibility of polyphenols and antioxidant activity in chickens. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Ao, X.; Kim, I.H. Effects of grape seed extract on performance, immunity, antioxidant capacity, and meat quality in Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2078–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Kumanda, C.; Mlambo, V.; Mnisi, C.M. From landfills to the dinner table: Red grape pomace waste as a nutraceutical for broiler chickens. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chamorro, S.; Viveros, A.; Rebolé, A.; Rica, B.D.; Arija, I.; Brenes, A. Influence of dietary enzyme addition on polyphenol utilization and meat lipid oxidation of chicks fed grape pomace. Int. Food Res. J. 2015, 73, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Aditya, S.; Ohh, S.J.; Ahammed, M.; Lohakare, J. Supplementation of grape pomace (Vitis vinifera) in broiler diets and its effect on growth performance, apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients, blood profile, and meat quality. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Dupak, R.; Kovac, J.; Kalafova, A.; Kovacik, A.; Tokarova, K.; Hascik, P.; Simonova, N.; Kacaniova, M.; Mellen, M.; Capcarova, M. Supplementation of grape pomace in broiler chickens diets and its effect on body weight, lipid profile, antioxidant status and serum biochemistry. Biologia 2021, 76, 2511–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ebrahimzadeh, S.; Navidshad, B.; Farhoomand, P.; Aghjehgheshlagh, F.M. Effects of exogenous tannase enzyme on growth performance, antioxidant status, immune response, gut morphology and intestinal microflora of chicks fed grape pomace. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 48, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Fróes, H.; Jácome, I.; Tavares, R.; Garcia, R.; Domingues, C.; Bevilaqua, T.; Martinelli, M.; Naas, I.; Borille, R. Grape (Vitis vinifera) pomace flour as pigment agent of quail eggs. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2018, 20, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kara, K.; Kocaoğlu Güçlü, B.; Baytok, E.; Şentürk, M. Effects of grape pomace supplementation to laying hen diet on performance, egg quality, egg lipid peroxidation and some biochemical parameters. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2016, 44, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lichovnikova, M.; Kalhotka, L.; Adam, V.; Klejdus, B.; Anderle, V. The effects of red grape pomace inclusion in grower diet on amino acid digestibility, intestinal microflora, and sera and liver antioxidant activity in broilers. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2015, 39, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mavrommatis, A.; Giamouri, E.; Myrtsi, E.D.; Evergetis, E.; Filippi, K.; Papapostolou, H.; Koulocheri, S.D.; Zoidis, E.; Pappas, A.C.; Koutinas, A.; et al. Antioxidant status of broiler chickens fed diets supplemented with vinification by-products: A valorization approach. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Pascariu, S.; Pop, I.; Simeanu, D.; Pavel, G.; Solcan, C. Effects of wine by-products on growth performance, complete blood count and total antioxidant status in broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2017, 19, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Reis, J.H.; Gebert, R.R.; Barreta, M.; Boiago, M.M.; Souza, C.F.; Baldissera, M.D.; Santos, I.D.; Wagner, R.; Laporta, L.V.; Stefani, L.M.; et al. Addition of grape pomace flour in the diet on laying hens in heat stress: Impacts on health and performance as well as the fatty acid profile and total antioxidant capacity in the egg. J. Therm. Biol. 2019, 80, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Romero, C.; Arija, I.; Viveros, A.; Chamorro, S. Productive performance, egg quality and yolk lipid oxidation in laying hens fed diets including grape pomace or grape extract. Animals 2022, 12, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Kaya, A.; Apaydin, B.; Kaya, H.; Gul, M.; Çelebi, Ş. The effects of diets supplemented with crushed and extracted grape seed on performance, egg quality parameters, yolk peroxidation and serum traits in laying hens. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2014, 78, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Turcu, R.; Margareta, O.; Criste, R.D.; Mariana, R.; Tatiana, P.; Șoica, C.; Drăgotoiu, D. The effect of using grape seeds meal as natural antioxidant in broiler diets enriched in fatty acids, on meat quality. J. Hyg. Eng. Des. 2019, 29, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  113. Chamorro, S.; Viveros, A.; Centeno, C.; Romero, C.; Arija, I.; Brenes, A. Effects of dietary grape seed extract on growth performance, amino acid digestibility and plasma lipids and mineral content in broiler chicks. Animal 2013, 7, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Farahat, M.; Abdallah, F.; Ali, H.; Hernandez-Santana, A. Effect of dietary supplementation of grape seed extract on the growth performance, lipid profile, antioxidant status and immune response of broiler chickens. Animal 2016, 11, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Grandhaye, J.; Douard, V.; Rodriguez-Mateos, A.; Xu, Y.; Cheok, A.; Riva, A.; Guabiraba, R.; Zemb, O.; Philippe, C.; Monnoye, M.; et al. Microbiota changes due to grape seed extract diet improved intestinal homeostasis and decreased fatness in parental broiler hens. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hajati, H.; Hassanabadi, A.; Golian, A.; Nassiri-Moghaddam, H.; Nassiri, M. The effect of grape seed extract supplementation on performance, antioxidant enzyme activity, and immune responses in broiler chickens exposed to chronic heat stress. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2018, 8, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
  117. Huerta, A.; Trocino, A.; Birolo, M.; Pascual, A.; Bordignon, F.; Radaelli, G.; Bortoletti, M.; Xiccato, G. Growth performance and gut response of broiler chickens fed diets supplemented with grape (Vitis vinifera L.) seed extract. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sun, P.; Lu, Y.; Cheng, H.; Song, D. The effect of grape seed extract and yeast culture on both cholesterol content of egg yolk and performance of laying hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2018, 27, 564–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wang, M.L.; Suo, X.; Gu, J.H.; Zhang, W.W.; Fang, Q.; Wang, X. Influence of grape seed proanthocyanidin extract in broiler chickens: Effect on chicken coccidiosis and antioxidant status. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 2273–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Cao, G.; Zeng, X.; Liu, J.; Yan, F.; Xiang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tao, F.; Yang, C. Change of serum metabolome and cecal microflora in broiler chickens supplemented with grape seed extracts. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 610934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Chalvon-Demersay, T.; Yamphet, T.; Srinongkote, S.; Ohara, H.; Lambert, W. Supplementing functional amino acids and polyphenols at low dose can restore performance and amino acid digestibility in broilers challenged with coccidiosis. Livest. Sci. 2021, 254, 104769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02239 g001 550
Figure 1. Grape by-products as feedstuff for pigs and poultry and consequences on animal production performance.
Figure 1. Grape by-products as feedstuff for pigs and poultry and consequences on animal production performance.
Animals 12 02239 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Costa, M.M.; Alfaia, C.M.; Lopes, P.A.; Pestana, J.M.; Prates, J.A.M. Grape By-Products as Feedstuff for Pig and Poultry Production. Animals 2022, 12, 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172239

AMA Style

Costa MM, Alfaia CM, Lopes PA, Pestana JM, Prates JAM. Grape By-Products as Feedstuff for Pig and Poultry Production. Animals. 2022; 12(17):2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172239

Chicago/Turabian Style

Costa, Mónica M., Cristina M. Alfaia, Paula A. Lopes, José M. Pestana, and José A. M. Prates. 2022. "Grape By-Products as Feedstuff for Pig and Poultry Production" Animals 12, no. 17: 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172239

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