Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2

The forage quality and the in vitro ruminal digestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters of tomato herbage silage with molasses and barley

Pages
201–213
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, ithas been concluded that using tomato herbage silage with barley up to 75% or sugar beet molasses up to 100% instead of corn silage indairy cattle ration did not have a negative effect in vitro.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, nutrient composition and use of silage after harvest of waste green parts (herbage) of tomato (Licopersiconesculentum L.) were researched as a wet forage source for ruminants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Three different silages of tomato herbage: without additive (TS),with 5% sugar beet molasses (TSm), or 5% crushed barley grain (TSb) were prepared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, ithas been concluded that using tomato herbage silage with barley up to 75% or sugar beet molasses up to 100% instead of corn silage indairy cattle ration did not have a negative effect in vitro.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, nutrient composition and use of silage after harvest of waste green parts (herbage) of tomato (Licopersiconesculentum L.) were researched as a wet forage source for ruminants. Three different silages of tomato herbage: without additive (TS),with 5% sugar beet molasses (TSm), or 5% crushed barley grain (TSb) were prepared. The forage quality and the in vitro ruminaldigestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters for different silages of tomato herbage weredetermined. Besides, the in vitro digestion values of using at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% rates instead of corn silage in the dairy cattletotal mix ration (TMR) were researched. The lactic acid content of TSb silage was higher than those of the TS and TSm silages (P 0.05). Consequently, results have shown that tomato herbage should be ensiled with 5% molasses. However, ithas been concluded that using tomato herbage silage with barley up to 75% or sugar beet molasses up to 100% instead of corn silage indairy cattle ration did not have a negative effect in vitro.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEKİN, M., KARA, K. (2022). The forage quality and the in vitro ruminal digestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters of tomato herbage silage with molasses and barley. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2, 201–213. https://ajindex.com/articles/614751

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Rodriguez F, Wu F, Ane C, Tanksley S, Spooner DM. Do potatoes and tomatoes have a single evolutionary history, and what proportion of the genome supports this history? BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010
  2. 9 (191): 1-16. doi: 10.1186/1471- 2148-9-191 2. Arab M, Bahramian B, Schindeler A, Valtchev P, Dehghani F, McConchie R. Extraction of phytochemicals from tomato leaf waste using subcritical carbon dioxide. Innovative Food Science Emerging Technologies 2019
  3. 102204. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2019.102204 3. Fernandez-Gomez MJ, Diaz-Ravina M, Romero E, Nogales R. Recycling of environmentally problematic plant wastes generated from greenhouse tomato crops through vermicomposting. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2013
  4. 10 (4): 697-708. doi: 10.1007/ s13762-013-0239-7 4. Friedman M, Levin CE. α-tomatine content in tomatoes and tomato products determined by HPLC with pulsed amperometric detection. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1995
  5. 43 (6): 1507-1511. doi: 10.1021/jf00054a017 5. Barceloux DG. Medical Toxicology of Natural Substances: Foods, Fungi, Medicinal Herbs, Toxic Plants, and Venomous Animals. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc
  6. pp. 77-83. 6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017. FAO. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. (02.03.2017) 7. Ercolano MR, Gomez LD, Andolfi A, Simister R, Troise C et al. Residual biomass saccharification in processing tomato is affected by cultivar and nitrogen fertilization. Biomass and Bioenergy 2015
  7. 72 (1): 242-250. doi: 10.1016/j. biombioe.2014.10.030 8. Kulcu R. Composting of greenhouse tomato plant residues, wheat straw, and separated dairy manure, and the effect of free air space on the process. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 2014
  8. 23 (4): 1341-1346 9. Bicheldey TK, Latushkina EN. Biogas emission prognosis at the landfills. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology 2010
  9. 7 (4): 623-628. doi:10.1007/BF03326172 10. Haile E, Njonge FK, Asgedom G, Gicheha M. Chemical composition and nutritive value of agro-industrial by-products in ruminant nutrition. Open Journal of Animal Sciences 2017
  10. 7 (1): 8-18. doi: 10.4236/ojas.2017.71002 11. Tayengwa T, Mapiye C. Citrus and winery wastes: promising dietary supplements for sustainable ruminant animal nutrition, health, production, and meat quality. Sustainability 2018
  11. 10 (1): 1-22. doi: 10.3390/su10103718 12. Shaver R. Nutritional risk factors in the etiology of left displa