Chemical, in vitro and in situ nutritional evaluation of waste papaya and pangola pasture silage

Evaluación química, nutricional in vitro e in situ de ensilado de papaya de desecho y pasto pangola

Objective. To characterize in vitro and in situ nutritional characterization of silages with 75% papaya residues and 25% pangola grass as a base and 3% sugarcane molasses as an additive. Materials and methods. Bagged silos (50 kg) were fermented for 21 d to measure quality (pH, ammonia nitrogen, dry matter (DM), lactic acid and volatile fatty acids (VFA)) and chemical characteristics (crude protein (CP), ash (As), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF)). In the in vitro assay, partial production at 24, 48 and 72 h and cumulative production at 72 h of biogas and methane, DM, NDF and ADF degradation at 72 h were measured. In situ digestibility was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 24, 24, 36, 72 and 96 h, and nutrient digestibility kinetics (DM, CP, NDF, ADF and OM). Results. The quality characteristics are within the established ranges for considering a good silage. In the chemical content, 5.1% CP and 70.0% NDF stand out. In the first 24 h, 72.3% biogas and 70.5% methane were produced. Degradations were 64% for DM, 51% for NDF and 55% for ADF. In situ digestibility at 72 h showed degradations of 63% for DM, 82% for CP, 49% for NDF and 47% for ADF. Conclusions. The preparation of silage with papaya and pangola grass residues is a non-conventional alternative for ruminant feeding.

1. FAO. Food loss and waste database [Internet]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2022 [citado 7 de mayo de 2022]. Disponible en: http://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/flw-data/en/
2. Yang J, Tan H, Cai Y. Characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolates and their effect on silage fermentation of fruit residues. J Dairy Sci. 2016; 99(7):5325-5334. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10952
3. SIAP. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Agrícola [Internet]. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. 2022 [citado 7 de mayo de 2022]. Disponible en: https://nube.siap.gob.mx/cierreagricola/
4. Sharma A, Bachheti A, Sharma P, Bachheti RK, Husen A. Phytochemistry, pharmacological activities, nanoparticle fabrication, commercial products and waste utilization of Carica papaya L.: A comprehensive review. Curr Res Biotechnol. 2020; 2:145-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbiot.2020.11.001
5. Zerpa-Catanho D, Esquivel P, Mora-Newcomer E, Sáenz MV, Herrera R, Jiménez VM. Transcription analysis of softening-related genes during postharvest of papaya fruit (Carica papaya L. ‘Pococí’ hybrid). Postharvest Biol Technol. 2017; 125:42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2016.11.002
6. Pathak PD, Mandavgane SA, Kulkarni BD. Waste to Wealth: A Case Study of Papaya Peel. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2019; 10(6):1755-1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0181-x
7. Sánchez-Santillán P, Marcial LAS, Jiménez LAS, Salado NT. Características de calidad, químicas y fermentativas in vitro de ensilados de papaya (Carica papaya l) de desecho y heno de pasto estrella (Cynodon nlemfluensis). Trop Subtrop Agroecosystems. 2022; 25(1):12. https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/3863
8. Cañaveral-Martínez UR, Sánchez-Santillán P, Torres-Salado N, Sánchez-Hernández D, Herrera-Pérez J, Rojas-García AR. Características de calidad, bromatológicas y fermentativas in vitro de ensilado de mango maduro. Rev Mex Agroecosistemas. 2020; 8(Suplemento 1):82-90. https://rmae.voaxaca.tecnm.mx/volumen-8-n-1/
9. AOAC. Official methods of analysis [Internet]. 18.a ed. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemist; 2005. Disponible en: https://www.eoma.aoac.org/
10. Taylor KACC. A simple colorimetric assay for muramic acid and lactic acid. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 1996; 56(1):49-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02787869
11. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991; 74(10):3583-3597.
12. Cobos MA, Yokoyama MT. Clostridium paratrifcum var. Ruminanitum: colonisation and degradation of shrimp carapaces in vitro observed by scanning electron microscopy. En: Wallace RJ, Lahlou-Kassi, editores. Rumen Ecology Research Planning. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Proceedings of a Workshop held at the International Livestock Research Institute; 1995.
13. Lavrenčič A, Stefanon B, Susmel P. An evaluation of the Gompertz model in degradability studies of forage chemical components. Anim Sci. 1997; 64(3):423-431.
14. Torres-Salado N, Sánchez-Santillán P, Rojas-García AR, Herrera-Pérez J, Hernández-Morales J. Producción de gases efecto invernadero in vitro de leguminosas arbóreas del trópico seco mexicano. Arch Zootec. 2018; 67(257):55-59. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v67i257.3491
15. Hernández-Morales J, Sánchez-Santillán P, Torres-Salado N, Herrera-Pérez J, Rojas-García AR, Reyes-Vázquez I, Mendoza-Núñez MA. Composición química y degradaciones in vitro de vainas y hojas de leguminosas arbóreas del trópico seco de México. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. 2018; 9(1):105-120. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v9i1.4332
16. Rosero NR, Posada SO. Modelación de la cinética de degradación de alimentos para rumiantes. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu. 2007; 20(2):174-182. https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/rccp/article/view/324134
17. Peng K, Gresham GL, McAllister TA, Xu Z, Iwaasa A, Schellenberg M, Chaves AV, Wang Y. Effects of inclusion of purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea Vent.) with native cool-season grasses on in vitro fermentation and in situ digestibility of mixed forages. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2020; 11(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-019-0418-6
18. SAS Institute Inc. Statistical Analysis System, SAS, Cary, NC: SAS Inst; 2011. https://support.sas.com/en/software/sas-stat-support.html
19. Ørskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci. 1979; 92(2):499-503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600063048
20. Di Rienzo JA, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Cazanoves F, Tablada M, Robledo WC. InfoStat versión 2020. Grupo Infostat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina; 2020. https://www.infostat.com.ar/
21. NOM-062-ZOO-1999. Norma Oficial Mexicana, Especificaciones técnicas para la producción, cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio. Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria. SENASICA, México; 2001. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/203498/NOM-62-ZOO-1999_220801.pdf.
22. Guzmán O, Lemus C, Martínez S, Bonilla J, Plasencia A. Características químicas del ensilado de residuos de mango (Mangifera indica L.) destinado a la alimentación animal. Rev Cuba Cienc Agríc. 2012; 46(4):369-374. http://cjascience.com/index.php/RCCA/article/view/165
23. Parisuaña-Callata JP, Churacutipa-Mamani M, Salas A, Barriga-Sánchez MB, Araníbar M. Ensilado de residuos de trucha en la alimentación de ovinos de engorde. Rev Investig Vet Perú. 2018; 29(1):151-160. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v29i1.14160
24. Wimalasiri S, Somasiri SC. Ensiled fruit peels of pineapple (Ananas comosus) and papaya (Carica papaya) as an animal feed. 2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Safety. 2021; (2):29-43. https://doi.org/10.32789/agrofood.2021.1003
25. Kung L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci. 2018; 101(5):4020-4033. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909
26. Carballo-Sánchez MP, Ramírez-Ramírez JC, Gimeno M, Hall GM, Ríos-Durán MG, Shirai K, Carballo-Sánchez MP, Ramírez-Ramírez JC, Gimeno M, Hall GM, . Ríos-Durán MG, Shirai K. Papaya (Carica papaya) and tuna (Thunnus albacares) by-products fermentation as biomanufacturing approach towards antioxidant protein hydrolysates. Rev Mex Ing Quím. 2016; 15(1):91-100.
27. Coronel-López BJ, Espino-García JJ, Peralta-Ortiz JJG, Torres-Cardona MG, Meza-Nieto MA, Almaraz-Buendía I. Characterization of fruit and vegetable waste as an alternative ruminant feed in Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. Agro Product. 2021; 14(2):49-53. https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.v14i2.1964
28. Lorenzo-Hernández R, Torres-Salado N, Sánchez-Santillán P, Herrera-Pérez J, Mayren-Mendoza F de J, Salinas T, Rojas AR, Maldonado PM. Evaluación de las características de calidad y bromatológicas de ensilados elaborados con residuos de calabaza (Cucurbita argyrosperma). Rev Int Contam Ambient. 2019; 35(4):957-963. https://doi.org/10.20937/RICA.2019.35.04.14.
29. Gándara L, Borrajo CI, Fernández JA, Pereira MM. Efecto de la fertilización nitrogenada y la edad del rebrote sobre el valor nutritivo de Brachiaria brizantha cv. «Marandú». Rev Fac Cienc Agrar. 2017; 49(1):69-77. https://revistas.uncu.edu.ar/ojs3/index.php/RFCA/article/view/3105
30. Amanzougarene Z, Fondevila M. Fitting of the in vitro gas production technique to the study of high concentrate diets. Animals. 2020; 10(10):1935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101935
31. Sánchez-Santillán P, Herrera-Pérez J, Torres-Salado N, Almaraz-Buendía I, Reyes-Vázquez I, Rojas-García AR, Gómez-Trinidad M, Contreras-Ramírez EO, Maldonado-Peralta MA, Magadan-Olmedo F. Chemical composition, and in vitro fermentation of ripe mango silage with molasses. Agrofor Syst. 2020; 94(4):1511-1519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00442-z
32. Gosselink JMJ, Dulphy JP, Poncet C, Jailler M, Tamminga S, Cone JW. Prediction of forage digestibility in ruminants using in situ and in vitro techniques. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2004; 115(3):227-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.01.008
33. Combs D. Using in vitro total-tract NDF digestibility in forge evaluation. Focus Forage. 2014; 15(2):1-3. ttps://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/using-in-vitro-total-tract-ndf-digestibility-in-forge-evaluation/
34. Hoffman PC, Lundberg KM, Shaver RD. NDF digestibility: reference values for forages, byproducts and total mixed rations. Focus Forage. 2006; 5(17):1-2. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/ndf-digestibility-reference-values-for-forages-byproducts-and-total-mixed-rations/
35. Hoffman PC, Lundberg LM, Shaver RD, Contreras-Govea FE. El Efecto de la madurez en la digestibilidad del FDN (fibra detergente neutro). Focus Forage. 2007; 15(5):1-2. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/files/2014/01/MaturityNDFesp-FOF.pdf
36. Colombatto D, Morgavi DP, Furtado AF, Beauchemin KA. Screening of exogenous enzymes for ruminant diets: Relationship between biochemical characteristics and in vitro ruminal degradation. J Anim Sci. 2003; 81(10):2628-2638. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.81102628x
37. Almaraz-Buendía I, García AM, Sánchez-Santillán P, Torres-Salado N, Herrera-Pérez J, Bottini-Luzardo MB, Rojas-García AR. Análisis bromatológico y producción de gas in vitro de forrajes utilizados en el trópico seco mexicano. Arch Zootec. 2019; 68(262):260-266. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v68i262.4145