Öz In this study, nutrient composition and use of silage after harvest of waste green parts herbage of tomato Licopersicon esculentum 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 ruminal digestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters for different silages of tomato herbage were determined. Besides, the in vitro digestion values of using at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% rates instead of corn silage in the dairy cattle total mix ration TMR were researched. The lactic acid content of TSb silage was higher than those of the TS and TSm silages P < 0.001 . The ensiling of tomato herbage with barley decreased the levels of acetic, butyric, and propionic acids in the silage P < 0.01 . The use limits of tomato herbage silages instead of corn silage in dairy cattle TMR were determined as 25% for TS, 75% for TSb, and 100% for TSm in terms of in vitro gas production and other digestion parameters during 24-h incubation. The volume of methane produced for mL/g DM at 24 h was decreased by increasing TS in dairy cattle TMR P < 0.001 but was not changed by increasing TSm and TSb in dairy cattle TMR P > 0.05 . Consequently, results have shown that tomato herbage should be ensiled with 5% molasses. However, it has been concluded that using tomato herbage silage with barley up to 75% or sugar beet molasses up to 100% instead of corn silage in dairy cattle ration did not have a negative effect in vitro.
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; 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; 57: 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; 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; 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; 2008. 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; 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; 23 (4): 1341-1346
9. Bicheldey TK, Latushkina EN. Biogas emission prognosis at the landfills. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology 2010; 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; 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; 10 (1): 1-22. doi: 10.3390/su10103718
12. Shaver R. Nutritional risk factors in the etiology of left displaced abomasum in dairy cows: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 1997; 80 (10): 2449-2453. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76197-6
13. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press: 2014
14. Cook BI, Anchukaitis KJ, Touchan R, Meko DM, Cook ER. Spatiotemporal drought variability in the Mediterranean over the last 900 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 2016; 121 (5): 2060-2074. doi: 10.1002/2015JD023929
15. Altin TB, Barak B, Altin BN. Change in precipitation and temperature amounts over three decades in central Anatolia, Turkey. Atmospheric Climate Sciences 2012; 2 (1): 107-125. doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.21013
16. Kara K, Guclu BK, Baytok E. Comparison of nutrient composition and anti-methanogenic properties of different Rosaceae species. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 2015; 24 (4): 308-314. doi: 10.22358/jafs/65613/2015
17. Kara K, Ozkaya S, Baytok E, et al. Effect of phenological stage on nutrient composition, in vitro fermentation and gas production kinetics of Plantago lanceolata herbage. Veterinarni Medicina 2018; 63 (6): 251-260. doi: 10.17221/2/2017-VETMED
18. Demirel M, Bolat D, Çelik S, Bakici Y, Çelik S. Quality of silages from sunflower harvested at different vegetational stages. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2006; 30 (2): 161- 165. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2006.9706610
19. Makkar HPS,Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS. Utilization of fruit and vegetable wastes as livestock feed and as substrates for generation of other value-added products. Bangkok, Thailand. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific; 2013. pp.1-56.
20. Bittman S, Kowalenko C. Advanced Silage Corn Management: A Production guide for coastal British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest. 1st ed. Agassiz, British Columbia. Pacific Field Corn Association: 2004.
21. AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Washington, DC, USA. 1995.
22. Van-Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 1991; 74 (10): 3583-3597. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
23. NRC. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle.7th Revised Edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA: 2001
24. Makkar HPS, Blummel M, Becker K. Formation of complexes between polyvinyl pyrrolidones or polyethylene glycols and their implication in gas production and true digestibility in vitro techniques. British Journal of Nutrition 1995; 73 (6): 897- 913. doi: 10.1079/bjn19950095
25. Bernardes TF, Gervasio JRS, De Morais G, Casagrande DR. Technical note: A comparison of methods to determine pH in silages. Journal of Dairy Science 2019; 102 (10): 9039-9042. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16553
26. Barnett AJ. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in silage. Biochemical Journal 1951; 49 (4): 527-529. doi: 10.1042/ bj0490527
27. Ersahince AC, Kara K. Nutrient composition and in vitro digestion parameters of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) herbage at different maturity stages in horse and ruminant. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 2017; 26 (3): 213-225. doi: 10.22358/jafs/76477/2017
28. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor. Journal of Agriculture Science 1979; 93 (1): 217-222. doi: 10.1017/S0021859600086305
29. Menke HH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 1988; 28 (1): 7-55.
30. Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, Holmes BJ, Muck RE. Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. Journal of Dairy Science 2018; 101 (5): 3952-3979. doi: 0.3168/jds.2017-13837
31. Podkowka Z, Podkowka L. Chemical composition and quality of sweet sorghum and maize silages. Journal of Central European Agriculture 2011; 12 (2): 294-303.
32. Kara K, Aktug E, Ozkaya S. Ruminal digestibility, microbial count, volatile fatty acids and gas kinetics of alternative forage sources for arid and semi-arid areas as in vitro. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2016; 15 (4): 673-680. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2016.1249420
33. Min BR, Pinchak WE, Anderson RC, Fulford JD, Puchala R. Effects of condensed tannins supplementation level on weight gain and in vitro and in vivo bloat precursors in steers grazing winter wheat. Journal of Animal Science 2006; 84 (9): 2546- 2554. doi: 10.2527/jas.2005-590
33. Woolford MK, Pahlow G. The silage fermentation. In: Wood BJB (editor). Microbiology of Fermented Foods, 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1998.
34. Beana BW, Baumhardt RL, McCollum FT, McCuistiona KC. Comparison of sorghum classes for grain and forage yield and forage nutritive value. Field Crops Research 2013; 142 (1): 20- 26. doi: 0.1016/j.fcr.2012.11.014