1. Agro-Industrial By-Products and Sustainability
By 2050, the world population is projected to increase from 8 billion in 2022 to 9.7 billion [1]. This is translated to an additional 2 billion people with increased wealth to elevate the demand for food, including meat produced with substantial amounts of resources [2]. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions are forecast to rise at an average rate of 2–6% annually until 2030 [2]. At the same time, global hunger is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic [3] and by conflicts in Eastern Europe in 2022 [4], which increased inflation and made healthy diets less affordable [3].
There is a challenge to address the need to be more resource-efficient due to the limitation of finite land and natural resources and the pressure to increase meat production posed by the rising population and the increase in incomes in developing countries. Although a large effort has been undertaken to address sustainability, triggering a change in food systems requires more than technical innovation [2]. All parts of a food ecosystem are crucial for this purpose, including consumers. Individual attitudes about food are formed by culture and temperament/identity [2], which often lack proper education and awareness of sustainable attitudes. For instance, a dietary change could be directed towards a low-meat diet containing meat from livestock fed on low-opportunity-cost feeds [5]. Such feeds include agro-industrial by-products (AIBPs), which result mainly from the processing of crop plants [6], food waste, and grass resources that are not intended for human consumption and can be used in animal nutrition to produce animal products without competing for land or triggering the food-feed competition [5]. Thus, a human diet containing products from low-cost livestock demands less arable land and resources than a vegan diet [5]. Van Hal et al. [7] estimated that 31 g of animal protein per EU capita per day can be produced if we incorporate low-opportunity-cost feed in animal diets. In this scenario, laying hens production should be reduced by 98%, and broiler raising should be ceased [7]. However, the contribution of poultry production to household food security and its importance to small-scale farmers, especially in the developing world [8], should not be overlooked. Although the scenario of van Hal et al. may seem utopic since it requires complete reformation of the food system and adaptation of the human diet [7], the agro-food system could be reformed towards the direction of environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
In the last years, much interest has been devoted by the agro-food sector to contemporary issues such as respect for the environment and human resources, production traceability, product quality, and food safety [9]. In academia, there is a large discussion about reducing dependence on conventional feedstuffs, i.e., corn and soybean, and using alternative feedstuffs in order to reduce the food-feed competition and the environmental impact of the animal production systems and to foster the production of healthy products. In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 1.6 million tons of AIBPs are produced annually, with Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), Italy, France, and Spain being the top producers [10]. Many agro-industrial by-products are commonly included in animal diets by-products from food processing or breweries, such as spent brewer’s grains, maize gluten meal, cakes or meals, sugar beet pulp (SBP), tomato pulp, distillery products, and sunflower meal (SFM) [10,11]. On the other hand, fruit and vegetable wastes are underutilized resources [10], but they are commonly utilized in animal nutrition in developing countries in an informal way [12]. However, AIBPs are usually disposed of in landfills or are incinerated, posing a significant burden to the environment [13]. Instead, the AIBPs or the isolated bioactive compounds can be incorporated into animal diets and thus provide a market opportunity. In the developing world, food losses are much more than in the developed world due to a lack of infrastructure, and more opportunities to transform AIBPs into animal feed are provided [14]. Locally produced AIBPs is an environmentally-friendly alternative to soybean meal, the cultivation of which is one of the causes of deforestation in South America, given that bird performance is not compromised [15]. Furthermore, several studies, as reviewed in our work, examine the replacement of maize and other conventional feedstuffs with AIBPs, a practice that could abate feed-food competition. Some of the favorable properties of AIBPs that can be utilized in animal nutrition include high protein content, suitable amino acid profile, high digestibility, palatability, reduced levels of indigestible fibrous substances, starch, anti-nutrients [16], no difficulties in the handling of the materials and safety. Many AIBPs contain a plethora of bioactive compounds that are shown to have anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial activity and to favor the antioxidant status of animals and thus improving growth performance, production quality, and endogenous antioxidant systems [17,18]. The mode of actions of bioactive compounds in poultry are reviewed by other researchers [19]. The nutritional characteristics of AIBPs have been compiled in tables by other reviewers [20] or can be found in repositories such as “Feedipedia” (
2. Agro-Industrial By-Products in Poultry Nutrition
2.1. Fruit Juice Industry Leftovers
The global production of apples was estimated to be about 9.3 million tons in 2021 [23]. Apple pomace (AP) is a by-product of apple processing and cider production, and it is estimated that 4 million metric tons (MMT) are produced globally every year [24]. AP is a significant by-product in many European countries, such as the UK, France, Spain, Ireland, and Germany. The most popular way of utilizing this by-product is by incorporation in animal feed [25]. AP consists of peel, core, seed, calyx, stem, and soft issue [26], and accounts for 25–35% of the weight of the processed raw material [27].
In broilers, dietary inclusion of 3–6% dried AP did not affect growth performance, gut morphometry, and histopathology but increased the weight of ileum and ceca and the ileum digesta viscosity and influenced the activity of some bacterial enzymes in the ileum [28]. However, the incorporation of higher levels of apple by-products in broiler diets provided unfavorable results. Air-dried apple peel waste at 50 g/kg of diet did not affect growth performance, while a level of 100 g/kg decreased the weight gain of broilers. Both dietary interventions had positive effects on the weight of some organs of the gastrointestinal system, blood cholesterol levels, digestibility, and the heat stress response of broilers [29]. Similarly, inclusion levels of 12–20% of dried AP adversely affected growth performance, immune response, gut development, antioxidant capacity, and blood biochemical parameters of broilers. AP was included in the feed in a dried and ground form [26].
In laying hens, dietary incorporation of dried AP up to 10% with the concomitant addition of a multi-enzyme additive at 0.05% improved laying hens’ performance, egg traits, and blood parameters without influencing other traits. The AP was dried and fine-milled before incorporation in the diet [30]. Inclusion of 10–25% dried AP enhanced reproductive performance, semen quality, and fatty acid profile of spermatozoa in aging broiler breeder roosters. The AP was dried, ground, and screened prior to inclusion in the diet [31]. In a study focused on geese, 7% dried AP application resulted in enhancement of egg laying performance and vitality of goslings [32].
The global production of oranges was estimated to be around 75.57 million tons in 2021, and the global production of lemon and limes was 20.828 million tons [23]. Orange by-products (e.g., peels, seeds, and membranes) are an essential waste stream in South European countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal [25]. The utilization of orange processing by-products in animal nutrition is the most widely used practice [25]. The primary by-products from citrus processing are fresh citrus pulp (CP) or dried CP (DCP). Fresh CP is the residue that results from the extraction of juice, while DCP is generated by shedding, liming, pressing, and drying the peel, pulp, and seed residues [33]. Although the protein content in CP is low, enhancement was observed with ensiling to a level comparable to cereal grains. In regard to antinutritional factors, protease inhibitors, phytate, and tannins are present in citrus peel [34].
Dried sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) peel (DCSP) in broiler diets at levels of 0.5–2% DCSP reduced liver and abdominal fat and serum triglycerides without negative effects on feed conversion ratio (FCR) [35]. In another study, the application of 0.8% DCSP powder in the diet reduced some blood biochemical parameters (e.g., cholesterol) of broilers without adverse effects on growth performance and carcass traits [36]. Inclusion rates of 1.5–3% DCSP in broiler diets did not affect final weight and carcass characteristics [37]. Concurrently, supplementation with 3% DCSP decreased plasma cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, and triglycerides levels [38] but reduced feed intake, body weight gain, and increased feed conversion rate during the starter and grower period [37]. Moreover, the blood biochemical parameters, such as plasma cholesterol, triglyceride, and aspartate aminotransferase of broilers, decreased linearly with increasing dried citrus waste from 2.5 to 7.5% in the diet. The citrus waste used was sun-dried and ground prior to incorporation into the diet [39]. However, the substitution of maize with DCSP at levels up to 20% in broiler diets did not influence growth performance, health, and weights of the most significant carcass cuts and internal organs, while substitution levels higher than 20% decreased body weight and some carcass cuts. In this study, the peels were sun-dried and milled before inclusion in the diet [40]. The modified blood biochemical profiles reported in the above-mentioned studies may be explained by the presence of vitamin C and other components of DCSP [35].
DCP inclusion rates of up to 10% in broiler diets did not affect intestinal morphometry [41], body weight, carcass traits, and meat quality, but it favorably decreased oxidation rate in chicken meat [41,42] and increased PUFAs, n-3-, and n-6 fatty acid contents in the breast intramuscular fat [42]. On the contrary, CP inclusion in broiler’s diets at levels of 5–10% exhibited an increase in feed intake and feed conversion rates, and significantly decreased daily weight gain, while elevated small intestine relative length and decreased carcass yield were observed, with the 10% CP group recording significantly higher PUFA content [43]. The incorporation of sun-dried lemon pulp at levels of 2.5–12% in broiler diets worsened growth performance, intestinal morphology, and humoral immunity [44].
Other poultry species have also been examined in relation to CP utilization. In ostrich diets, supplementation of 20% DCP (ground prior to inclusion in the diet) elevated PUFA content and n-6/n-3 ratio of meat and decreased meat cooking loss [45]. In goose diets, the application of DCP up to 12% did not influence growth performance and carcass yield. Lime was added to the CP prior to drying [46]. In hen diets, DCP inclusion of up to 9% supported egg yolk oxidative stability but deteriorated growth performance and egg quality [47]. Conversely, the incorporation of dried DCP at 12% in hen diets did not influence performance and egg quality in the early phase of production [48]. In quail diets, dietary addition of 3–6% DCP did not affect performance but influenced egg traits [49]. Key ingredients in various agro-industrial by-products are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Nonconventional Oilseed Industrial By-Products
Sunflower seed global production was approximately 58.185 million tons in 2021 [23]. SFM is a by-product of oil extraction from sunflower seeds and can be used as a protein source for broilers [61]. There is variability between SFMs depending on the processing methods used to extract the oil (solvent/crush) [62]. The main antinutritional factor found in SFM is chlorogenic acid [63]. The main constraint in using high inclusion levels of SFM in broiler diets is the high fiber content, which is higher than 11–12%, including dehulled SFM [64].
In broilers, dietary levels of SFM up to 12% did not affect body weight, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, mortality, the European Production Efficiency Factor index, carcass percentage, and cut yield [65]. SFM at levels up to 140 g/kg in the diet enhanced the performance of broilers without worsening digestive enzyme activity, organ weight, and histological alterations of intestinal villi [66]. SFM inclusion at 15% in diets formulated on digestible amino acid basis improved broilers’ performance and did not affect carcass and cut yields but resulted in an increase in digesta viscosity [67]. However, increment levels of SFM in the diet was found to deteriorate performance (reduced weight gain and increased feed conversion ratio) and carcass traits (linear reduction of a carcass, breast, breast fillet, and abdominal fat weights) of broilers, but the inclusion of 8% SFM and an enzyme mixture had the highest economic efficiency index among the groups [68]. SFM supplementation at 20% in the diet improved the feed/gain ratio and reduced feed intake in the starter and total period, but weight gain and carcass or cut yields were not affected [69]. High-protein SFM (45.4% crude protein) was recommended to be included in the broiler diets at different levels during the starter (up to 10%), grower (up to 20%), and finishing period (up to 23%), which did not affect growth performance. Furthermore, the substitution of 10% soybean meal with SFM can decrease diet costs by 3.74% to 4.61%, depending on the rearing period [70]. Moreover, high-protein SFM was suggested to be added in broiler diets at different levels during starter (5–15%), growing (8–20%), and finisher (12–22%) periods without affecting body weight and feed conversion ratio [71]. However, high-protein SFM incorporation at levels of between 10 and 15% in the diet deteriorated growth performance, but it was attributed to the lower than the optimum size of the particles of the feed [72]. Low-fiber SFM addition of up to 25% in diets led to growth performance and carcass traits of broilers comparable with broilers fed soybean meal-based diet [73].
On the other hand, sunflower cake inclusion reduced the performance of broilers (1–21 d), but the loss of weight was regained during 22–42 d with a corn-and-soybean-based diet; however, compromised carcass yield and intestinal morphometric development were observed [74]. Similarly, the inclusion of up to 16% SFM negatively affected performance and intestinal morphometry without influencing carcass yields, but the addition of an enzyme complex prevented the above-mentioned negative effects [75]. Likewise, weight gain was compromised by the incorporation of 10 or 16% SFM in the finisher diet of broilers, and gut viscosity was increased in the 16% SFM group, while enzyme supplementation counteracted these effects, especially during the growing period [76]. The above studies showed inconsistent results on utilizing SFM in broiler diets in terms of growth performance. In laying hens, dietary levels up to 25% SFM did not affect performance or egg fatty acid content and reduced yolk cholesterol level and production costs [77]. Similarly, the inclusion of up to 20% SFM in the diet of dwarf dam line hens did not affect egg quality characteristics apart from the Haugh unit that was increased [78].
2.3. Dried Distillers’ Grain with Solubles
Dried distillers’ grain with solubles (DDGS) is a co-product generated from the production of bioethanol by the extraction of starch from cereals during fermentation [79]. Approximately 40 million tons of DDGS are produced worldwide, with the USA accounting for 58% of global production [80]. DDGS is produced mainly by wheat in Europe, while in North America, it is generated mainly by maize. Maize DDGS contains high levels of crude protein (30%), but the content of lysine is low, and it is not consistent [81]. DDGS are one of the most studied co-products in poultry nutrition compared to other by-products. DDGS exhibits high nutrient variability depending on its source [82]. The main limitations of the wide use of DDGS in animal nutrition include the high variability of nutrient composition and the mycotoxin occurrence [83], which is discussed in Section 3.
In broilers’ diets, the incorporation of 8, 16, and 24% DDGS increased body weight gain without other adverse effects [84]. Inclusion levels up to 160 g/kg in broiler diets from 22 to 42 d did not affect performance, carcass and cut yields, meat quality, and litter characteristics [85]. In the starter period of broilers, an 8% DDGS level did not have any effect on their growth performance. On the other hand, in the grower period, body weight gain and liver-relative weight (g of organ/kg of body weight) reduced linearly with increasing levels of DDGS, but feed conversion, mortality, ileal viscosity, and cecal Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli concentrations were not influenced by DDGS dietary levels (7.5, 15, 22.5, and 30%) [86]. In another study, a dietary level of 8% in the starter period of broilers increased the feed conversion ratio, while during the grower period, levels up to 14% did not affect growth, feed intake, carcass yield, and breast meat yield [87]. Corn-based DDGS supplementation at values up to 15% in broiler diets was found to affect specific meat quality traits and liver malondialdehyde production but increased PUFA/SFA ratio [88]. The meat quality of breast and thigh meat of broilers was not affected by dietary inclusion with 6 or 12% DDGS but levels greater than 12% increased total PUFAs, linoleic acid, and susceptibility of thigh meat to oxidation [89]. High-protein DDGS in the diet of broilers did not affect performance and can cover the requirements for supplemental lysine and arginine since DDGS can be a good source of digestible lysine [90]. Low-oil DDGS could be included at 10% in broiler diets providing improved performance or 20% with no adverse effects on performance traits [91]. From an environmental standpoint, although DDGS can be beneficial in poultry nutrition, considering DDGS as broiler feed was found to have the highest effect on elevating greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption in comparison with diets containing soybean meal, corn, or synthetic amino acids [92].
In laying hens, no significant negative effects were observed on the production or egg traits of hens. More specifically, dietary levels of DDGS up to 32% resulted in darker (L* value) and redder (a* value) yolk, with the 16% DGGS group achieving the highest egg production compared to the 0, 8, and 24% DGGS groups [93]. In another study, inclusion levels up to 15% (from 24 to 46 wk.) and up to 25% (from 47 to 76 wk.) in hen diets did not have negative effects on performance characteristics, egg production, and quality traits, while nitrogen and phosphorus excretions were lower at the DDGS level of 25% [94]. Another study suggested that incorporating up to 12% dietary levels of DDGS in hens’ diets may lead to better performance in terms of feed intake, feed conversion ratio, and egg production [95]. Likewise, supplementation of hens’ diets with up to 10% DDGS did not have detrimental effects on laying performance, while enzyme supplementation may improve the use of DDGS at levels up to 20% [96]. Higher levels of DDGS in the diet, up to 50%, were found to elevate lutein and PUFA contents in egg yolk without affecting cholesterol and choline contents [97].
In a study assessing the sustainability of utilizing DDGS in laying hens’ diets, it was indicated that substituting 25 or 50% of soybean meal in the diet reduced nitrogen and phosphorus excretion in hens and thus decreased pollution of these elements in the environment was achieved without affecting nutrient digestibility [98]. The reduction of nitrogen excretion may be due to the increased digestibility of the diet, while the reduction of phosphorus excretion is due to the increased bioavailability, which results in the heat-mediated destruction of phytate during drying. Moreover, the addition of 20% DDGS in hen diets aged 21–26 wk. was found to reduce daily NH3 and H2S air emissions by 24% and 58%, respectively, while egg weight, egg production, and feed intake were not affected [99]. In ducks, a study suggested that dietary inclusion of 10% corn DDGS did not have adverse effects on growth performance, carcass characteristics, serum biochemical indexes, meat physical and chemical quality, nutrient utilization, and the standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids of the diets [100].
2.4. Vinification By-Products
Global production of grapes accounts for 73.5 million tons annually [23]. Grape pomace (GP), which is the solid residue of grapes, constitutes around 20% of the total grape weight and results from the extraction of the juice for winemaking. It is estimated that more than 9 million tons of GP are generated every year [101]. GP comprises the skins, seeds, and stems of grapes [102]. The use of GP in monogastric nutrition is limited due to the high content of the lignified cell wall fraction and the high level of some antinutritional factors, such as condensed tannins and phytic acid, which are present in lower levels [102,103,104]. Treatment of GP with polyethylene glycol can inactivate, to some extent, condensed tannins [105,106].
In broiler diets, diet enrichment of 5–60 g/kg of GP enhanced intestinal morphology, the antioxidant capacity, and PUFA content of breast muscle and reduced serum cholesterol values without affecting feed intake, feed efficiency, growth performance traits and weights of pancreas, liver, spleen, and abdominal fat [107,108,109,110]. Similar levels of GP (20–60 g/kg) in heat-stressed broiler diets improved plasma biochemical indices and antioxidant enzyme activities without influencing growth performance, relative length of different small intestine segments, jejunal morphology, and antibody titer against sheep red blood cells [111]. The incorporation of 2.5–7.5% red GP in broiler diets did not affect weight gain, carcass traits, meat quality characteristics, blood biochemical parameters, and serum biochemistry, while an increase in meat redness was observed [112]. The final body, giblets, and breast weight of broilers were elevated after dietary enrichment with 3% of GP into the diet [113] without affecting malondialdehyde values in breast and thigh meat [114]. GP addition at levels of 2.5–7% in the diet increased PUFA levels and reduced the lipid oxidation rate of meat without affecting meat quality characteristics [115]. A higher dietary level of GP (20%) also led to raised antioxidant capacity of chicken meat without affecting the productive traits of broilers [116]. On the contrary, meat lightness and yellowness, lipid oxidation levels, and bacterial spoilage were not affected by the inclusion of lower dietary levels (2.5–10 g/kg) of GP [117]. Dietary levels of GP concentrate at 15–60 g/kg increased the antioxidant capacity of breast muscle, ileal content and excreta without affecting growth performance, crude protein ileal digestibility and the weight of pancreas, liver, spleen, and abdominal fat of broilers [118]. In another study, supplementation of 1.5% red GP improved apparent nutrient digestion, diet metabolizable energy, number of different Lactobacillus spp. in the ileum, and plasma antioxidant activity without affecting growth characteristics [119]. The addition of GP up to 10% in the diet enhanced the antioxidant and immune responses of broilers without impairing growth performance [120].
In laying hen diets, the incorporation of 4 or 6% did not influence growth traits, egg production, egg quality indices, live weight, and liver weight, while egg weight was enhanced at a 4% dietary level [121]. The inclusion of 1–3% GP in heat-stressed laying hen diets at the end of the productive cycle improved growth performance, egg quality, serum total antioxidant capacity, and the activities of glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities [122]. In quail diets, 2–6% GP dietary addition did not affect egg production, feed intake, and feed conversion rate, but a linear reduction of albumen weight, egg-specific gravity, and egg weight with increased levels of GP were observed [123].
2.5. Olive Oil Industry By-Products
Large quantities of olive by-products are generated during olive oil extraction, such as leaves, stones, olive mill wastewater, and the solid wastes’ pomace residues and olive cake (OC). In 2020, approximately 3.373 million tons of olive oil were produced worldwide [23]. For every 1 kg of olives, around 800 g of OC is generated [124]. The improper disposal of these by-products is notorious for the impact they pose on the environment due to the phytotoxicity and high organic content of the by-products [125]. Olive pomace, due to its oil content, undergoes rancidity when exposed to oxygen and moisture. Drying may delay this chemical reaction [126].
In broiler diets, supplementation of up to 10% olive leaves or OC did not alter bone mineralization nor affected the growth performance of broilers [127]. For broilers at 1–28 d of age, the optimal production index and productive performance were the achieved with application of 5% OC combined with 0.4 g/kg of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast [128] or with 10% OC supplemented and 500 FTU/kg bacterial E. coli phytase [129,130]. During the final growth stage (28–49 d) of broilers, OC could be added at 10% of the diet or up to 20% supplemented with 1 g/kg citric acid without deteriorating feed conversion and health status [131]. The addition of Bacillus licheniformis enhanced the fat and nutrient utilization, growth performance, and antioxidant response in broilers [132]. Furthermore, the addition of fermented defatted OC may favor intestinal mucosa and cecal microbiota of broilers and thus control the dissemination of pathogenic bacteria and improve digestibility and absorption capacity [133]. Likewise, OC at levels up to 10% in diets of slow-growing broilers was found to improve productive traits, meat oxidation, and intestinal morphometric features [134]. In another study, it was concluded that OC at levels above 50 g/kg diet may affect some quality characteristics and the oxidative stability of meat, while at lower levels, the oxidative stability, oleic acid, and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) of meat were increased [135]. Similarly, the addition of 50 g/kg of OC and an enzyme blend significantly increased carcass and offal weights [136] but decreased jejunum weight and length, serum triglycerides, and cholesterol levels of broilers [137]. Higher levels of OC (82.5–165 g/kg diet) seemed to enhance daily weight gain, meat antioxidant status, and oxidative stability [138]. The inclusion of 5% olive pomace in broiler diets also improved breast and thigh sensory attributes and antithrombotic properties [139].
Olive pulp (OP) inclusion of up to 5% in broiler diets did not affect final body weight, carcass yield, total antioxidant activity, and expression of selected antioxidant enzymes [140]. Furthermore, OP incorporation up to 100 g/kg did not affect growth and nutritional characteristics and the nutritional cost of the diet, and no influence of the studied parameters was observed with the addition of an enzyme blend in the diet containing OP [141]. In another study, growth performance, carcass traits, blood biochemistry parameters, humoral immunity response, and cecum microbiota were not affected by the addition of 4% olive meal in broiler diets [142]. Another by-product of olive oil extraction, olive mill wastewater, when added to broiler diets, improved total antioxidant capacity and redox status and reduced protein and lipid peroxidation rates in plasma and tissues [143]. In a recent study, the incorporation of silage from olive mill wastewater solids, grape pomace solids, and feta cheese whey solids at levels up to 10% showed promising results for growth performance and meat quality [144], and increased n-3 fatty acids and antioxidant capacity in meat [145]. The application of an olive pomace extract at 750 ppm in broiler diets positively affected animal growth and anti-inflammatory properties [146]. Likewise, 1500 ppm of an olive pomace extract mitigated some of the adverse effects of the fasting challenge [147].
In laying hens, OC dietary levels up to 16% elevated MUFA and PUFA and reduced saturated fatty acids (SFA) and cholesterol contents in egg yolk without any effects on productive performance [148]. In other studies, 9% OC addition in hens’ diets increased egg and eggshell weights and decreased blood triglycerides level [149,150]. Higher levels of OC up to 20% combined with 0.1% citric acid could also be used in hens’ diets without adverse effects on blood metabolites, laying performance, and egg quality [151]. In quails, the inclusion of OC at levels of 5–7.5% reduced SFA and PUFA and increased MUFA levels in breast muscle, and decreased total serum cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [152]. In another study, it was observed that up to 10% OC in quail diets improved the antioxidant status, immune response, and growth performance [153]. Similar inclusion levels (5–10%) of OC in laying quails diets led to an improvement in serum lipid profile and antioxidant status, egg cholesterol content, and performance during early laying periods [154].
2.6. Pomegranate By-Products
Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) pulp (PP) is generated during pomegranate juice extraction and comprises outer peel, seeds, and residual pulp [155]. Global production of pomegranate is estimated at about 3 million tons, and the global generation of the by-products (peels and seeds), which account for approximately 54% of the fruit, is calculated to be around 1.62 million tons annually [156]. Fat, crude protein, and fiber contents in PP and their antioxidant properties can be useful in poultry nutrition [17]. Different processing methods have been reported for pomegranate by-products in the literature. In one study, a pomegranate by-product consisting of 80% peel and rind and 20% of seed was dried in a forced air oven (80 °C for 3 d), ground into powder employing a milling machine, and a 0.15-mm sieve, packed in polyethylene bags and stored at room temperature [157]. In another study, fermentation of pomegranate by-products, including peels, rinds, and seeds, was applied by drying in a forced air oven (80 °C, 2 d), grinding and sieving, pasteurization (85 °C, 30 min) and solid substrate fermentation [158].
In broiler diets, the incorporation of 1–2% PP resulted in favorable effects on meat fatty acid levels, increased protein content in the breast, and reduced meat cholesterol and lipid oxidation values [157]. Supplementation with higher levels of PP at 2–4 g/kg supported growth rate, blood serum metabolites, immunological parameters, and meat quality characteristics [159]. Likewise, the inclusion of 2–4 g/kg PP in broiler diets resulted in desirable effects with respect to performance, digestibility, carcass, and organ indices compared to broilers fed a diet supplemented with α-tocopherol [160]. The incorporation of 0.5% PP in broiler rations decreased ascites mortality and favored meat shelf-life without adverse effects on growth performance [161]. Fermented PP inclusion at levels of 1–2% in broiler diet increased daily weight gain and feed efficiency and decreased fecal ammonia emission [158]. Supplementation with similar levels of fermented PP (0.5–2%) also enhanced weight gain, reduced SFA, cholesterol, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances values in meat, and increased levels of n-3 meat fatty acids [162]. On the other hand, raw or fermented PP at levels of 5–10 g/kg affected adversely ileum morphology, but malondialdehyde values in breast meat and C. perfringens count were lowered without affecting animal performance and serum antioxidant enzyme values [163]. The inclusion of 7–10% in the diet of heat-stressed broilers enhanced growth performance, blood cholesterol, and antioxidant status [164]. Furthermore, urea-treated PP at values of 30–50 g/kg in the diet of heat-stressed broilers supported growth performance, plasma blood biochemical indices, liver function, immune response, intestinal morphology, and meat quality [165]. Pomegranate seed oil incorporation at a level of 1.5% led to a reduction of total cholesterol levels in blood without affecting liver enzyme activities and lipid contents [166], while abdominal fat level, PUFA content, and conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) deposition in breast increased as indicated in another study [167]. Moreover, the partial substitution of soybean oil with pomegranate seed oil led to elevated levels of punicic and rumenic fatty acids without affecting carcass traits, dressing percentage, and breast and thigh muscle physicochemical composition [168].
In laying hen diets, supplementation with 2–4% pomegranate peel powder improved blood antioxidant activity and reduced plasma cholesterol and triglyceride content [169]. Pomegranate seed oil in hen diets enhanced laying rate, color, and concentrations of punicic acid and CLA in egg yolk [170]. In quail diets, the incorporation of 2.7–7.5% pomegranate peel powder enhanced feed conversion rate, egg performance, and villus height-to-crypt depth ratio, while serum triglyceride, cholesterol, and glucose levels were reduced [171].
2.7. Tomato Processing By-Products
Tomato pomace (TP) is a residue by-product of the paste production industry, which comprises the seeds, skin (or peel), and a small amount of pulp. Global production of TP is estimated to be about 5.4–9.0 million tons [172]. TP accounts for 3–5% of the raw material and can be used as a protein and energy source in poultry nutrition [173,174]. More specifically, TP consists of fibers (59%), sugars (26%), proteins (19%), pectins (8%), fat (6%), minerals (4%), and antioxidants (e.g., lycopene) on a dry basis [175]. Regarding the processing of tomato pulp, in one study, drying (up to 65 °C) until a dry 900 g/kg was reached and grinding using a hammer mill was applied [176].
In broilers, TP at inclusion levels up to 15–20% in the diet improved the economic efficiency without negative effects on performance and carcass characteristics [177,178,179]. In another study, the incorporation level of 5% TP mitigated the adverse effects induced by heat stress in broilers [180]. Furthermore, the use of tomato waste juice up to 120 mL/day in broiler rations was found to contribute to the development of the internal organs of broilers [181].
In laying hens, dried TP up to 10% in the diet was demonstrated to improve egg quality traits without posing adverse effects on growth performance or other egg characteristics [176,182,183]. Dried TP at increasing concentrations from 5 to 10 g/kg induced a linear increase in feed intake and favored egg performance and egg quality characteristics [184]. The addition of 5% dried tomato waste in hen diets also reduced lipid peroxidation of eggs and enriched them with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), but absorption and deposition of n-3 PUFA in egg yolk decreased with increasing dietary levels from 2.5% to 7.5% of tomato waste [185]. In another study, the yolk color score increased with increasing dried TP from 0 to 19% in the hen diet, while animal performance and egg characteristics were not significantly affected [186].
In quails, dried TP can be incorporated at levels up to 4–6% in the diet without adverse effects on growth performance [187]. In the study of Botsoglou et al. [188], PUFA and PUFA/SFA ratio significantly increased in the meat of quails, which were provided with a diet containing 10% dried TP. However, Nikolakakis et al. [189] did not detect any change in the fatty acid profile and composition of quail meat at the inclusion dietary levels of 5–10% dried TP, while growth performance and carcass characteristics were not significantly influenced. Moreover, dried TP at incorporation levels of 2.5–5% alleviated some effects of heat stress in quails and favored feed intake and live weight gain [190].
2.8. Other Agro-Industrial By-Products
Sugar beet pulp (SBP), a by-product of the sugar cane industry, can be a valuable source of highly digestible fibers, pectins, and sugars [191]. Global production of sugar beet was estimated at approximately 270 million tons in 2021 [23]. Antinutritional factors contained in SBP include saponins [192]. In broilers, the incorporation of 2.5% sugar beet meal enhanced growth performance and giblet relative weight [193]. Furthermore, 30 g/kg SBP in diets of broilers from 1 to 10 days of age improved growth performance, the relative weight of gastrointestinal tract and gizzard, gizzard digesta content, and total tract digestibility [194]. Higher levels of SBP up to 50 g/kg benefited the development of the gastrointestinal tract [195], decreased feed conversion ratio, and enhanced nutrient digestibility [196]. However, 75 g/kg SBP may affect growth performance and intestinal mucosa structure [195]. This observation was supported by a study in which 75 g/kg of SBP reduced villus height and villus height-to-crypt depth ratio [197], body weight, weight gain, low-density lipoprotein, and total cholesterol serum levels [198]. However, the ileal digestibility of organic matter, crude fat, and crude protein, and total serum cholesterol concentration were reduced with increasing levels of 23–92 g/kg SBP in broiler diets [199]. Furthermore, aqueous methanolic extract of SBP at concentrations of 100–300 mg/kg showed adequate anticoccidial activity based on the criteria of feed conversion ratio, lesion score, oocyst score, and oocysts per gram of feces [200]. In laying hens, the inclusion of 3–7% SBP enhanced egg performance, egg quality traits, and egg yolk cholesterol, triglyceride, and malondialdehyde levels, and reduced serum biochemical indices, such as cholesterol [201]. Conversely, in quail diets, productive performance, egg quality criteria, and nitrogen balance were not influenced by 20–40 g/kg SBP inclusion; however, reproductive parameters and nutrients’ digestibility were negatively affected [191].
Brewery by-products are unpopular in poultry diets due to the high level of the fiber fraction [202]. The main by-products generated during the brewing process include brewers’ grain (85% of the generated by-products), malt sprouts, and brewers’ dried yeast. Global production of brewer’s spent grains is estimated to be about 39 million tons, of which 3.4 million tons are generated in the European Union (EU) [203]. Among the brewery by-products, brewers’ dried yeast is commonly used in poultry diets due to its content of riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, choline, and phosphorus [16,60]. Brewers condensed solubles can be used in poultry or turkey diets due to their high energy content ([204], cited by [202]). Substitution of maize with brewers dried grains up to 75% significantly increased final live weight, weight gain, and feed conversion ratio, while feed intake decreased with increased levels of replacement [205]. The addition of sand in pullets diets containing brewers dried grains enhanced digestibility, gain, and feed conversion ratio, while the inclusion of higher levels than 15–20% decreased feed conversion efficiency [206]. Fermented brewer’s spent grains incorporation in laying quail diets increased gross egg production, the intensity of egg production, and reduced feed conversion ratio [207]. Furthermore, feeding coarse brewer’s spent grain instead of ground to broilers feed increased feed utilization and gizzard weight with apparent metabolizable energy and ileal digestibility not being affected [208]. Significant findings on the inclusion levels of various agro-industrial by-products in poultry diets are summarized in Table 2.
3. Potential Limitations of Utilizing Agro-Industrial By-Products in Poultry Nutrition
Potential limitations in using AIBP in poultry rations include nutrient variability, feed safety, sensitivity to peroxidation, the presence of anti-nutritional factors, their high content of fiber, and whether it is possible to achieve profit by this practice.
The nutrient composition of AIBPs may vary depending on the area, climate, and season, which limits their use in animal diets [10]. Nutrient variability can be reduced by the processing of AIBPs to produce a uniform feed with consistent nutrient composition, while nutrient supplementation is necessary [60]. Furthermore, technological requirements are necessary to stabilize the final AIBP product and to abate seasonal variability [21]. Seasonal availability of some by-products is a limit in their wide use, such as in the case of vegetables and fruit residues, for example, in cider and wine production, which takes place from September to October [10,209]. These by-products are mainly fed raw or after drying [210]. In DDGS, variability in the nutrient composition depends on different factors, including the origin of raw material, the processing methods applied, fermentation yeast properties, and year of production, and thus, chemical analysis of DDGS from different sources should be conducted regularly [83].
Considering a processing method to be applied to AIBPs, the good nutritional value of the final product and socioeconomic and ecological feasibility should be taken into account [211]. Drying of by-products with high moisture, often exceeding 80%, such as grape and tomato pomace and skins, is necessary to prevent microbial spoilage [60,212], which should take place by the producer soon after the generation of the by-products [18]. Water content higher than 20% in the by-product prior to processing could limit storage duration. Refrigeration or treatments with exogenous enzymes or fermentation permit a longer shelf life for the by-products. In the case of fruit pomaces, steam explosion, and amination may also be used [126]. In grape by-products, the above-mentioned processing methods and polyethylene glycol treatment release non-starch polysaccharides or linked tannins from cell walls and biomass resulting in an increase in digestibility and enhanced bioactive properties [104]. Moreover, transportation costs increase when the moisture content of AIBPs is high. The energy costs of drying of high-moisture AIBPs may be higher than the value of the feedstuff itself. Thus, mixing with other dry feedstuffs to reduce water content prior to processing can be applied [60]. In order to ensure the economic feasibility of using AIBPs in animal nutrition, the relative economic value should be low [210]. Solar drying is gaining much attention as an environmentally friendly and low-cost processing method. Methods of solar drying include open-air drying (sun drying) and drying with the use of sun dryers. In the case of apple and orange waste, treatment with greenhouse solar dryers is more suitable than sun drying in terms of time efficiency, minimization of microorganisms, and nutritional value [212]. However, drying of by-products may lead to a concentration of pesticide residues, while mycotoxins can be produced by molds in low water activity levels [25].
Food safety is a prerequisite to achieving food security and protecting the income of small-scale farmers. A circular economy may introduce safety hazards in the food supply chain. Although there are numerous scientific articles on the reuse of alternative foods and feeds, the safety of these products in a circular economy is sometimes neglected in the literature. The importance of safety in a circular economy has been reviewed by researchers, for instance, for insects, former food products [213], catering waste [211], and seaweeds [214], while the significance of emerging hazards has been indicated by EFSA et al. [215].
Although a circular economy is promoted in the EU through the EC Green Deal and Farm to Fork policy, no policies to monitor the safety of by-products exist [216]. The EU Regulation (EC) 178/2002 stipulates that the food business operators are responsible for the safety of the products put on the market [216,217]. Although several feed contamination episodes have occurred over the last decades, such as the carry-over of dioxins from feed by-products [218], limited data are available in the literature on the hazards of plant by-products and their carry-over in other parts of the food supply chain [216].
Different chemical hazards have been found in plant by-products, such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticides, and plant toxins. In Table 3, hazards in each AIBP reported in the literature are presented. Mycotoxin occurrence varies depending on agronomic practices, the geographic location of the crop grown, and meteorological conditions [219]. Heavy metals or other contaminants, such as antibiotic residues, may accumulate in by-products, such as sugar beet pulp, which can be taken up from the soil. The route of antibiotic residues contaminating the soil is via manure [220]. In the case of grape by-products, the level of heavy metals is variable and depends on soil composition and contamination and the grape variety [104].
DDGS and germ, rootlets, or brewer’s spent grains may be contaminated by mycotoxins [216]. These by-products are of particular importance since mycotoxins are frequently found in cereals [218], and they accumulate primarily in the outer fractions of the grain, such as the fibers and husks [216]. In the case of DDGS, this co-product may contain three times the content of some mycotoxins compared to the raw material [216]. The primary mycotoxins that may be present in corn and can be found in DDGS include fumonisin, aflatoxin, deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin), zearalenone, and ochratoxin. The risk of contamination of corn DDGS is very low due to the control systems applied throughout the chain of farm-bioethanol industry-animal feed [82,221]. In sugar beet pulp silage, the mycotoxins ochratoxin A, zearalenone, mycophenolic acid, and roquefortine C were found in France [222]. Moreover, it is forecasted that a higher prevalence of aflatoxin producing species (i.e., Aspergillus spp.) will be evident due to climate change [223]. A reduction of mycotoxin levels in grains can be achieved by mitigation measures. These include good agricultural practices, plant breeding, use of less susceptible varieties, plant protection, crop rotation, drying, and storage. Appropriate sampling and testing are needed to identify potentially contaminated feed. Measures focusing on contaminated feed include visual/automated sorting, decontamination (e.g., ammoniation), the addition of binders, or the proper inclusion in the diet of less sensitive animal species [224]. Furthermore, risk assessment is necessary to evaluate the risk of mycotoxins to poultry and consumer health via potential carry-over. Antibiotic residues may also be found in DDGS as a result of using antibiotics in bioethanol production that function as inhibitors to microbial growth in order to enhance the fermentation process [216].
CP may be contaminated by pesticide residues and dioxins. For example, one sample of CP was found to contain the pesticide heptachlor at a level exceeding the maximum residue level (MRL) by the official control in Denmark from the results published between 1996 and 2008 [218]. In a risk assessment [218], it was concluded that if residue levels of the stobilurin pesticides azoxystrobin, pyroclostrobin, and the fungicides imazalil and thiabendazol in CP are lower than 0.5 mg/kg, inclusion levels of 20% or 23% in the poultry diet will not result in negative health effects for the consumer [218]. Distribution of pesticides in the by-products due to processing is another point to be considered. The concentration of pesticides in the by-product may occur if processing steps that include dehydration are used [25], while pesticides tend to concentrate in brewer’s spent grains [220].
The transformation of pesticide residues in food processing by-products may take place depending on factors such as temperature and microbial activities resulting in contamination with other chemicals [25]. Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs) can be introduced in CP via contaminated lime (calcium hydroxide), which is used at a level of 2% to partly neutralize fruit acids and make it suitable as animal feed [225]. Another possible route of transmission of dioxin in CP was reported in Germany, The Netherlands, and Belgium, in 1998, via the use of certain types of waste as the fuel for the direct drying of CP [226]. Other persistent environmental pollutants include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be present in by-products comprising fats and fatty acids, such as vegetable oils [216]. For example, PAHs have been identified in olive pomace oil [227].
The antinutritional factors that are usually present in AIBP may affect feed palatability, digestibility, and animal production performance [20]. The processing methods to deactivate the antinutritional factors include physical, chemical, and biological methods [20].
AIBPs may be a cheap source of feed, but to the best of our knowledge, economic analyses of the use of AIBPs in poultry nutrition are scarce. However, in practice, it is widely known that it may be cost-effective in comparison with using conventional feeds. In a study conducted on pomegranate by-products, feed cost per unit of weight gain was lower in experimental groups fed 1% or 2% fermented pomegranate byproducts in the diet compared to the basal diet containing solely conventional feeds [158]. In another study, the feeding cost in broilers fed a diet containing corn-silage was 1.95 –fold higher than the feeding cost in broilers fed a diet containing avocado and pomegranate by-products [228]. In a study evaluating the economic feasibility of OP in broiler diets, feed cost per kg live weight was statistically higher when 100 g/kg OP was fed compared to the inclusion level of 50 g/kg OP. In countries and regions that produce olive oil, the use of olive pomace may reduce poultry production costs, while in other regions, the cost of olive pomace can be a barrier for its use [141]. SFM inclusion level of 8% resulted in an improvement of the economic efficiency index compared to inclusion of 0, 16, and 24% SFM levels in broiler diets [68]. Increasing incorporation levels of sorghum DDGS in broiler diets decreased the cost of feed/kg, while at the level of 20% of DDGS, maximum financial returns were observed [229]. Another study found that 50% or 100% maize replacement with brewer’s dried grain in the diet leads to the lowest production feed cost per kg weight gain of broilers [205]. One important factor that may reduce the cost is to maintain a small distance between livestock farms and the generation sites of by-products [230]. To calculate the true cost of AIBP feed, the Extension of the University of Georgia recommends taking into account the price of the feed delivered to the farm, the interest, the shrinkage and storage losses, and the extra handling cost [231]. It is encouraging that extensions of universities, such as in the case of the University of Georgia, provide recommendations about the incorporation of AIBP in animal diets. Economic incentives to alleviate the costs of using AIBPs in animal nutrition would foster the participation of the different stakeholders (e.g., farmers and feed manufacturers).
4. Conclusions
AIBPs contain several bioactive compounds that may act as antimicrobial agents, antioxidants, and immune modulators. These properties may contribute to the role of AIBPs as functional feed ingredients in promoting the health, productivity, and well-being of poultry. Based on the findings reported in the present study, the following inclusion levels of agro-industrial by-products are proposed. Dried apple pomace at levels up to 6% in broiler diets and up to 25% in laying hens are recommended. Dried sweet orange peel up to 3% in broiler diets and dried citrus pulp up to 10% in broiler diets could be used, while favorable results were reported in ostrich and goose diets, while in hen diets variable results were found. Sunflower meal in broiler diets at levels up to 15%, especially when an enzyme mixture was added, provided favorable results, depending on the growing period. However, results were inconsistent among the studies. In the hen’s diet, the inclusion of sunflower meal at levels up to 25% did not show negative results. In the case of dried distillers’ grain with solubles, levels up to 24% in broiler diets and up to 25% in laying hen diets could be used, but variable results were reported depending on the growing period. Grape pomace can be included at levels up to 10% in broiler diets and up to 6% in hen diets. Olive cake could be incorporated at levels up to 20% in broiler and hen diets, with the addition of citric acid and olive pulp at levels up to 10%. Raw or fermented pomegranate pulp could be used at levels up to 2%. Sugar beet pulp could be incorporated at levels up to 5% in broiler diets. However, ways to reduce nutrient variability of ABIP across countries should be found.
Unfortunately, AIBPs also have shortcomings and limitations, such as the presence of anti-nutritional ingredients and chemical hazards. The importance of the control of potential hazards in AIBPs should be emphasized through proper legislation and knowledge of the different stakeholders involved. For example, the use of good agricultural practices and minimization measures of the antinutritional factors present in AIBPs. Furthermore, many of the studies reviewed herein presented notable differences in the characterization of extracts in terms of their biological properties when assessed. However, modern processing methods, new types/classifications, and appropriate developmental strategies are expanding the applications of AIBPs as animal feeds for poultry production.
Overall, given that the availability and price of the AIBPs may vary greatly across the regions, the use of such by-products as functional feed ingredients in poultry rations should therefore be adjusted according to the availability and cost of each by-product. Moreover, due to the nutrient variability of AIBPs, proximate analysis prior to feeding is necessary to manage animal diets and decrease costs. Future studies should confirm the efficacy of agro-industrial residues and their derivative products in substituting the use of conventional feedstuffs in poultry nutrition.
Conceptualization, A.G., A.C.P., and E.Z.; methodology, A.G., A.C.P., and P.S.; software, A.G.; validation, A.G., E.G., M.G., and P.S.; formal analysis, A.G., A.C.P., M.G., and E.Z.; investigation, A.G., E.G., P.S., M.G., and A.C.P.; resources, A.C.P. and E.Z.; data curation, A.G., E.G., M.G., and P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G., A.C.P., P.S., and E.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.G., E.G., M.G., A.C.P., E.Z., and P.S.; visualization, A.G.; supervision, A.C.P. and E.Z.; project administration, A.G., A.C.P., and P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Key ingredients in agro-industrial by-products.
| By-Product Origin | Agro-Industrial By-Product | Key Ingredients | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apple | Apple pomace | Pectin, catechins, hydroxycinnamates, phloretin glycosides, quercetin glycosides, procyanidins | [ |
| Citrus fruits | Citrus pomace | Essential oil (mainly monoterpenes and triterpenoids), phenols (coumaric, caffeic, and ferulic acids), and flavonoids, mainly flavanones glycosides (hesperidin, naringin, and narirestin), flavones (hesperetin, naringenin), flavones aglycon (luteolin), and polymethoxylated flavones (tangeretin) | [ |
| Citrus seeds | Flavonoids | [ |
|
| Orange peels | Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), phenolic compounds, pectin, coumarin, volatile oils, flavonoids, and flavones (hesperidin, naringenin), nobiletin D-limonene and pigments (carotenoids) | [ |
|
| Lemon peels | Hesperidin and eriocitrin | [ |
|
| Sunflower | Defatted cake | Peptides | [ |
| Dried distillers’ grain with solubles | Corn dried distillers’ grain with solubles | Betaine and phenolic compounds | [ |
| Grape and winery by-products | Grape pomace | Polyphenols (catechin, epicatechin, procyanidin B1, quercetin and kaempferol) | [ |
| Red grape pomace | Anthocyanins, flavonols | [ |
|
| Olive | Olive pomace | Hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, caffeic protocatechuic, vanillic, p-coumaric and syringic acids, vanillin, oleuropein, apigenin | [ |
| Olive mill wastewater | Hydroxytyrosol, gallic acid, oleuropein, ligstroside isomers and derivatives, squalene, tocopherols, triterpenes, soluble sugars, polyphenols | [ |
|
| Olive flesh, stone, and seeds | Polyphenols, tocopherol | [ |
|
| Olive leaves | Polyphenols | [ |
|
| Pomegranate | Pomegranate husks | Poly- and monomeric phenols | [ |
| Tomato | Tomato skin and seeds | Lycopene, β-carotene, sterols, tocopherols, terpenes, glycoalkaloids | [ |
| Brewing industry | Brewer’s spent grains | Xylitol, cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, xylose, glucose, arabinose, protein, ferulic and p-coumaric acids | [ |
Based on references [
Key findings on inclusion levels of agro-industrial by-products in poultry diets.
| Agro-Industrial By-Product | Poultry |
Examined |
Key Findings as Reported by Authors | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple pomace (AP) | Broiler | 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 20% and multi-enzyme | Aghili et al. indicated compromised growth performance and reduced antibody titer production, intestinal morphology, total antioxidant capacity, and blood parameters with increasing dietary levels of apple pomace. | [ |
| 0, 3, 6% | Colombino et al. observed an effect on growth performance, gut morphometry, and histopathology, elevated ileum and ceca weight and ileum digesta viscosity and activities of α-glucosidase, α-galactosidase, β-galactosidase, β-glucuronidase, and xylase were influenced. | [ |
||
| Aging breeder roosters | 0, 10, 20, 25% | Akhlaghi et al. demonstrated an improvement in sperm fertility and motility, hatchability rate, seminal total antioxidant capacity and sperm characteristics, and increased values of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and integrity of the sperm plasma membrane. | [ |
|
| Goose | 0, 7%, 10%, and 0.05% multi-enzyme supplement | Fiialovych and Kyryliv observed an enhancement in egg laying, hatchability, and vitality of goslings with 7% AP in the diet. |
[ |
|
| Laying hen | 0, 5, 10, 15% AP and 0 or 0.05% multi-enzyme | Ghaemi et al. indicated that AP levels up to 10% combined with 0.05% multi-enzyme supplement led to enhanced blood biochemical parameters, egg laying rate, and traits without affecting other parameters. | [ |
|
| Apple peel waste | Broiler | 0, 50, or 100 g/kg and 0 or 500 mg/kg multi-enzyme | Heidarisafar et al. found increased gizzard and small intestine weights and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, decreased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and malondialdehyde content and apparent ileal protein digestibility, while 100 g/kg apple peel waste decreased weight gain of heat-stressed broilers. | [ |
| Dried Citrus sinensis peel (DCSP) | Broiler | 0, 1.5, 3.0% | Ebrahimi et al. demonstrated that final weight, hot carcass weight, and carcass yield were not affected by the incorporation of DCSP at levels 1.5–3%. DCSP addition at 3% during the starter period (1–21 d) achieved the highest values for breast and pancreas weight and ileum length, but during the whole period (1–42 d), the lowest values for breast and thigh weight were indicated at 1.5 and 3% DCSP, respectively. However, reduced feed intake, body weight (BW) gain, and increased feed conversion rate during both the starter and growing periods were indicated. | [ |
| 0, 1.5, 3.0% | Ebrahimi et al. DCSP inclusion at the dose of 3% led to a reduction of plasma cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides values, and glucose. | [ |
||
| 0, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% | Abbasi et al. observed an elevation in feed intake and BW gain and a decrease in liver and abdominal fat content and serum triglyceride levels, with feed conversion rate not being affected. | [ |
||
| 0, 0.8% | Alzawqari et al. observed reduced serum glucose, cholesterol, LDL and HDL, triglyceride concentration and enhanced total antioxidant status without affecting feed intake, BW gain, feed conversion rate, and carcass traits with 0.8% DCSP level. | [ |
||
| Citrus sinensis peel | Broiler | 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% substitution of maize | Agu et al. indicated a reduction in BW with the substitution of maize with higher than 20% sweet orange peel with feed intake, BW gain, feed conversion rate, weights of the most important carcass cuts (thigh, breast, back, neck, and shoulder) and internal organs (kidney, liver, heart, spleen, and lung) not being influenced. |
[ |
| Citrus pulp (CP) | Broiler | 0, 5, 10% | Mourão et al. observed elevated small intestine relative length and decreased carcass yield. Furthermore, PUFA meat content, feed intake and feed conversion rate increased, but daily weight gain decreased with a 10% CP dietary level. | [ |
| Ostrich | 0, 20% | Lanza et al. indicated that the iliofibularis muscle exhibited reduced ultimate pH and lighter color compared to the gastrocnemius muscle. |
[ |
|
| Dehydrated citrus pulp | Broiler | 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10% | Diaz-Vargas et al. did not observe any negative effect on BW, carcass traits, meat quality, and intestinal morphometry among the dietary treatments; however, decreased oxidation rate in chicken meat was observed. | [ |
| Orange pulp (OPU) | Broiler | Control (without additives), 50 g/kg OPU, 0.15 ppm Se, or 50 g/kg OPU and 0.15 ppm Se | Zoidis et al. (2022) reported that the OPU and Se-supplemented group and the Se group exhibited enhanced meat oxidative stability (assessed based on malondialdehyde (MDA) content) during frozen storage (90–210 d), with a synergistic action between OPU and Se. |
[ |
| Laying hen | 0, 9% | Goliomytis et al. observed enhanced egg yolk oxidative stability but also a deterioration of performance and egg quality with 9% OPU. | [ |
|
| Dried citrus pulp (DCP) | Laying hen | 0, 4, 8, 12, 16% | Nazok et al. stated that dried DCP up to 12% did not affect performance and egg quality in early-phase hens reducing at the same time egg cholesterol levels. | [ |
| Goose | 0, 4, 8, 12, 16% | Wang et al. found that dried DCP up to 12% in the diet did not influence weight gain, feed intake, feed/gain ratio, the carcass yields (%) of breast and leg meat, subcutaneous fat and skin, and abdominal fat. | [ |
|
| Laying quail | 0, 3, 6% | Florou-Paneri et al. reported that BW increased in the DCP groups, while BW gain was not influenced among the dietary groups. |
[ |
|
| Citrus waste (CW) | Broiler | 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5% CW and multi-enzyme | Behera et al. indicated a linear reduction of plasma cholesterol, triglyceride, and aspartate aminotransferase values with increment levels of CW, while total protein, albumin, globulin, and blood urea nitrogen content were not influenced. | [ |
| Dried lemon (Citrus aurantifulia) pulp (DLP) | Broiler | 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 12% | Basir et al. reported that 2.5–12% DLP dietary levels reduced final BW, daily weight gain, and deteriorated feed conversion rate. The 7.5–12% DLP levels reduced jejunal crypt depth and antibody titers against influenza disease virus and sheep red blood cells. | [ |
| Sunflower meal (SFM) | Broiler | 0, 4, 8, or 12% | Sangsoponjit et al. reported that BW, feed intake, FCR, mortality, and the European Production Efficiency Factor index of broilers were not significantly affected by the dietary treatments. |
[ |
| 0, 70, 140, or 210 g/kg | Moghaddam et al. observed an enhancement with respect to BW gain, feed intake, and FCR with inclusion levels of SFM up to 140 g/kg, while 210 g SFM/kg had adverse effects on performance. |
[ |
||
| 0 or 15% | Araújo et al. reported that 15% SFM incorporation in a diet formulated on a total amino acid basis deteriorated FCR and BW gain and did not affect feed intake, while when the diet was formulated on a digestible amino acid basis, FCR was not affected among treatments. |
[ |
||
| 0, 8, 16, and 24%, and three levels of enzyme blend | Araújo et al. indicated that the weight gain and FCR of broilers (21–42 d) deteriorated with increasing levels of SFM. |
[ |
||
| 0 or 20%, with or without enzyme complex | Tavernari et al. did not observe any interactions between SFM and the enzyme blend with respect to performance. |
[ |
||
| 0, 4, 8, 12, or 16% SFM, with or without enzyme complex | De Oliveira et al. reported that growth performance deteriorated with the dietary addition of SFM, but weight gain and feed intake increased with the enzyme supplementation. |
[ |
||
| Group I (0% SFM or enzyme blend), group II (6% SFM in grower and 10% in finisher diet, with or without 0.01% enzyme blend), group III (8% in grower and 16% in finisher diet, with or without 0.01% enzyme blend) | Horvatovic et al. indicated an enhancement in weight gain and FCR by the enzyme supplementation during the grower phase, while weight gain decreased by the SFM addition in the diet during the finisher phase. |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 8.26, 16.52, or 24.84% | Shi et al. did not observe any significant differences with respect to growth performance (BW gain, egg production, daily egg mass, daily feed intake, and feed conversion) and egg quality (average egg weight, egg specific gravity, shell strength, shell color, shell thickness, |
[ |
|
| 0, 10, 15, or 20% | Das et al. reported that there were no significant differences in egg quality traits, except for the Haugh unit, which was higher in the white dwarf line compared to the colored dwarf, and an increasing effect on the parameter was observed due to the inclusion of SFM in the diet. |
[ |
||
| High-protein sunflower meal (HPSFM) | Broiler | Starter diet (from 5 to 15% HPSFM and from 20 to 29.9% soybean meal (SBM)), grower diet (from 10 to 25% HPSFM and from 5.5 to 20% SBM), finisher diet (from 15 to 26.5% HPSFM and from 0 to 11.3% SBM) | Gerzilov and Petrov did not observe any differences with respect to BW among treatments. |
[ |
| Group I (5, 8, and 12% in starter, grower, and finisher diets, respectively), group II (15, 20, and 22%, respectively), group III (32.95, 28.55, and 26.50%, respectively) | Kyrkelanov et al. reported a significant increase in BW at d 10 in groups I and II (5 and 15% HPSFM in the starter phase, respectively). |
[ |
||
| 0, 10, 15% | Chobanova indicated that live weight was decreased, and the feed/gain ratio increased in the HPSFM groups. | [ |
||
| Low-fiber sunflower meal (LFSFM) | Broiler | 0, 25, 50, or 75% substitution of SBM with LFSFM, and 0 or 0.2 g/kg phytase | Ciurescu et al. reported that substitution of SBM with LFSFM beyond 25% reduced FCR and BW gain. |
[ |
| Sunflower cake (SC) | Broiler | 0, 5, 10, 15, or 20% SC, with or without enzyme complex | Berwanger et al. indicated that, with increasing levels of SC in the diet, the weight gain, final weight, and feed intake linearly decreased during d 1–21. |
[ |
| Dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) | Broiler | 0, 10, 40, 70, 100, 130, or 160 g/kg | Damasceno et al. reported that BW gain, feed intake, and FCR of broilers (22–42 d) were not significantly different among treatments. |
[ |
| 5% conventional DDGS (control group), or 10, 15, or 20% high-protein DDGS (34% crude protein on a wet basis) | Fries-Craft and Bobeck indicated that BW was lower, feed intake was not influenced, and thus FCR was higher in the 15 and 20% high-protein DDGS groups compared to the control. |
[ |
||
| 0, 8, 16, 24% | Shim et al. reported that the BW gain of broilers was not significantly different at 42 d, but the parameter was elevated during 0–18 d in the DDGS groups. |
[ |
||
| Starter diet (0 or 8% DDGS), grower diet (0, 7.5, 15, 22.5, or 30% DDGS) | Loar II et al. reported a linear decrease in pellet quality with increasing levels of DDGS. |
[ |
||
| 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25% | Min et al. reported that increased b* (yellowness) values and shear force, decreased cooking loss, and differences in the fatty acid profiles of the breast and thigh were observed. |
[ |
||
| Starter and grower diet (0 or 8%), finisher diet (0, 7, 14, 21, or 28%) | Loar II et al. indicated an increase in FCR and a decrease in BW gain during 0–28 d. |
[ |
||
| 0, 6, 12, 18, or 24% | Schilling et al. did not observe any differences in terms of cooking loss, instrumental color, and consumer acceptability of breast meat among the groups, but the shear force of breast meat from the control group was slightly reduced compared to the 18 and 24% DDGS groups. |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 0, 8, 16, 24, or 32% | Loar II et al. reported that egg production was higher in the 16% DDGS group compared to the 0, 8, and 24% DDGS groups, while the 32% exhibited intermediate values with no significant differences with the other treatments. |
[ |
|
| 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25% | Masa’deh et al. reported that daily feed intake, egg production, and overall weight gain were unaffected by the inclusion of DDGS in the diet. |
[ |
||
| 0, 17, 35, or 50% | Sun et al. indicated that total PUFA increased in the DDGS groups, while choline and cholesterol contents were higher in the 50% DDGS during the beginning of the 24-wk study period but did not differ at the end of the period in comparison with the other treatments. |
[ |
||
| 0, 6, 12, or 18%, and 0 or 250 mg enzyme mixture/kg | Abd El-Hack et al. reported that the lowest egg production and daily feed intake and the worst FCR were observed in the 18% DDGS group. |
[ |
||
| 0, 5, 10, 15, or 20%, with or without two different enzymes | Shalash et al. indicated that no significant differences were observed with respect to digestibility coefficient values of crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber, nitrogen-free extract, BW gain, feed intake, and egg quality by the addition of DDGS in the diet. |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 0, 10, 20% | Wu-Haan et al. reported that egg production, egg weight, and feed intake were not influenced by dietary treatments. |
[ |
|
| 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100% substitution of SBM with DDGS (corresponds to 0, 5.5, 11, 16.5, and 22% DDGS in the diet, respectively), and additives (without, 250 mg enzyme/kg, or 200 mg vitamin E/kg) | Abd El-Hack et al. reported that digestion coefficient values of nutrients were improved in the 25% DDGS substitution group of hens (22–42 wk), whereas the 100% DDGS group exhibited a reduction of the parameter. |
[ |
||
| Duck | 0, 5, 10, 15, 20% | Ding et al. reported a linear and quadratic decrease in BW (42 d), average daily gain, and average daily feed intake from d 11 to 42, breast meat yield, the moisture and protein content in the breast meat, and dietary dry matter and ether extract utilization with increasing levels of DDGS in the diet. |
[ |
|
| Low-oil distillers dried grains with solubles (LO-DDGS) | Broiler | 0, 10, or 20% | Guney et al. indicated that feed efficiency (0–18 d) was enhanced in the 10% LO-DDGS group compared to the 20% LO-DDGS group. |
[ |
| Grape pomace (GP) and fermented grape pomace (FGP) | Broiler | Basal diet (no additives), 0.25 g/kg synthetic antioxidants (AO), 15 g/kg GP, or 15 g/kg FGP | Gungor et al. reported that mortality rate, dressing percentage, and relative weights of heart, liver, gizzard, gastrointestinal tract, abdominal fat, spleen, and edible internal organs were not different among the treatments. |
[ |
| Grape pomace | Broiler | 5, 15, 30 g/kg | Goñí et al. observed increasing content of α-tocopherol concentration in liver with increasing GP dietary levels, but it was lower than in the case of vitamin E dietary supplementation. |
[ |
| 0, 5.0, 7.5, 10 g/kg | Aditya et al. found that BW, feed intake, FCR, serum levels of glucose, triglyceride, and HDL cholesterol were not influenced. |
[ |
||
| 0, 3, 6% | Turcu et al. found a higher meat color difference for breast and thigh meat, increased meat hardness, improved meat color and texture, and decreased TBARS in thigh meat. |
[ |
||
| 0, 2.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7.5% | Kumanda et al. reported no effect of red GP dietary incorporation on weight gain, blood biochemical parameters, serum biochemistry, carcass traits, and meat quality characteristics except for increased meat redness, while feed conversion efficiency was higher at 5.5 and 7.5% GP dietary levels. | [ |
||
| 0, 1, 2, 3% | Haščík et al. indicated an increase in the final body, giblets, and breast weight at a 3% GP dietary level. | [ |
||
| 0, 1, 2, 3% | Jurčaga et al. did not observe any effect on lipid oxidation in meat. | [ |
||
| 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5% | Bennato et al. showed an elevation in PUFA values and a reduction in the lipid oxidation rate of meat without affecting meat pH, cooking loss, and lightness. | [ |
||
| 0, 1.5% | Lichovnikova et al. reported no negative effects on feed intake, feed/gain ratio, and an improvement in apparent nutrient digestion, diet metabolizable energy, number of the considered beneficial bacteria Lactobacillus spp. in the ileum, and plasma antioxidant activity. | [ |
||
| 0% GP, 200 mg/kg vitamin E, 5% GP, 7.5%, 10% | Ebrahimzadeh et al. did not observe any negative effects on growth performance, while improved antioxidant and immune responses at dietary GP levels up to 10% were reported. | [ |
||
| 0, 2.5, 5, 10 g/kg | Kasapidou et al. indicated no effect on meat lightness and yellowness, lipid oxidation levels, and bacterial spoilage. | [ |
||
| Heat-stressed broiler | 0 g/kg (rearing at comfort temperatures), or 0, 20, 40, and 60 g/kg (rearing at comfort temperatures initially and heat stress application from d 25 to 42) | Hosseini-Vashan et al. reported that feed intake linearly increased with increasing levels of GP (starter and grower periods), while it linearly reduced blood concentration of triglycerides, plasma cholesterol, LDL, and enzyme activity of aspartate aminotransferase. |
[ |
|
| Laying hen | 0, 4, 6% | Kara et al. reported that feed intake, feed efficiency, live weight and egg production, eggshell thickness, eggshell ratio, albumen index, egg-specific gravity, egg yolk index, Haugh unit, yolk color, total protein, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were not affected. |
[ |
|
| Heat-stressed laying hen | 0, 1, 2, 3% | Reis et al. found that heat-stressed hens at the end of the productive cycle showed elevated serum total antioxidant capacity and GPx and SOD activities, and improved performance, and antioxidant capacity, while it reduced lipid peroxidation rate in the yolk. | [ |
|
| Quail | 0, 2, 4, 6% | Fróes et al. reported no effect on egg production, feed intake, FCR, Haugh unit, and eggshell thickness. |
[ |
|
| Wine-grape pomace flour (WGPF) | Broiler | 0% WGPF, 20% red WGPF, or 20% white WGPF | Reyes et al. reported that BW, daily weight gain, feed intake, and FCR were not affected in the white WGPF group. |
[ |
| Grape pomace concentrate (GPC) | Broiler | Control group (without GP or additives), 15, 30, or 60 g/kg GP, or 200 mg/kg α-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E) | Brenes et al. reported that growth performance, apparent ileal digestibility of crude protein, the relative weight of abdominal fat, liver, pancreas, and spleen, and the relative intestinal length were not affected by the incorporation of GPC in the diet. |
[ |
| Olive cake (OC) | Broiler | 0, 5, or 10% OC and 0.2, or 0.4 g/kg yeast | Al-Harthi reported that the best BW gain, FCR, and European production efficiency index were recorded in the 5% OC plus 0.4 g/kg yeast-supplemented group. |
[ |
| 0, 5, 10% OC and 0 or 500 FTU/kg of phytase | Al-Harthi et al. indicated that the growth rate, European production index, and economic efficiency of broilers (7–28 d) were not affected by OC dietary inclusion, while these parameters increased with phytase supplementation. |
[ |
||
| 0, 5, 10% OC with or without galzym or phytase | Al-Harthi et al. reported that incorporation of OC up to 10% did not affect BW gain, final BW, survival rate, FCR, dressing percentage, inner and immune organs ratios to live BW |
[ |
||
| 0, 10, 20% with or without 1 or 2 g/kg citric acid | Al-Harthi and Attia indicated that 10% OC inclusion did not affect the following parameters of broilers (28–49 d): BW gain, feed intake, FCR, survival rate, European production efficiency index, meat pH, meat color, water holding capacity, meat tenderness, dressing percentage, abdominal fat, the proportions of heart, pancreas, intestine, and cecum, red blood cell characteristics, hepatocellular leakage markers; however, the liver proportion was lower compared to the control group. |
[ |
||
| 0, 2, 4% OC with or without Bacillus licheniformis (BL) | Saleh et al. reported that the inclusion of OC and BL did not influence feed intake, improved weight gain, and reduced FCR, abdominal fat, or blood total cholesterol. |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 0, 10, or 20% and 0, 0.1, or 0.2% citric acid | Al-Harthi and Attia reported that in the OC groups without citric acid addition, there was no effect on laying performance, egg quality, or liver function indices in laying hens (40–56 wk), but feed intake was increased, and FCR deteriorated compared to the OC-free groups. |
[ |
|
| Quail | 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5% | Ozcan et al. found that the 5 and 7.5% OC meal groups recorded reduced serum total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels, and elevated cholesterol levels in the breast muscle. |
[ |
|
| Olive cake and olive leaves (OL) | Broiler | 0, 5, or 10% OC, or 0, 5, or 10% OL | Pečjak et al. did not observe significant differences in growth performance (final live weight, feed intake) and in the mineral content in the femur, tibia, and humerus among dietary treatments. |
[ |
| Defatted olive cake | Broiler | 0 or 2% | Rebollada-Merino et al. indicated that broilers (14–35 d) had increased villus height in the duodenum and villus and crypt depth in the duodenum and the cecum, which may improve mucosal renewal. | [ |
| Semi-solid olive cake | Broiler | 0, 82.5, 165.0 g/kg | Branciari et al. reported that growth rate increased with increasing levels of OC, and meat antioxidant status and oxidative stability were enhanced, especially at 165 g/kg OC was applied. |
[ |
| Olive pulp (OP) | Broiler | 0, 5, 10% | Tufarelli et al. reported that there was no effect on growth performance, dressing percentage, breast yield, or breast meat fatty acid composition. |
[ |
| T1: 0% OP, T2: 25 or 50 g OP/kg, T3: 50 g OP/kg, T4: 50 or 80 g OP/kg | Papadomichelakis et al. reported that FCR was higher in T2 and T3 in comparison with the control group during the grower phase, while it was higher in T3 compared to T1, T2, and control groups during the finisher phase. |
[ |
||
| 0, 2.5, 5, 8% | Pappas et al. reported that no differences were observed in terms of final BW, carcass yield, total antioxidant activity, and the values of serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase/aspartate aminotransaminase (SGOT/AST), serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase/alanine aminotransferase (SGPT/ALT), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), γ-glutamyl transferase (γ-GT), alkaline phosphatase, cholesterol, total protein, albumins, globulins, and hematocrit among treatments. |
[ |
||
| 0, 50, and 100 g/kg processed or unprocessed OP with or without enzyme (ENZ) blend | Sayehban et al. reported that there were no significant differences in feed intake, weight gain, feed efficiency, energy intake, energy efficiency, protein intake, protein efficiency, feed cost per kg live weight, and production index between dietary treatments. |
[ |
||
| 50 or 100 g/kg | Sayehban et al. indicated that serum triglycerides and cholesterol levels, jejunum weight, and length were decreased by OP inclusion. |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 2 control diets, 160 g/kg OP with or without probiotics | Afsari et al. reported that OP dietary addition did not affect egg production and egg mass, BW, and excreta pH, while feed intake, FCR ratio increased, and serum levels of cholesterol and HDL decreased. |
[ |
|
| 0, 4.5, or 9.0% OP with or without 0 or 0.05% enzyme | Zangeneh and Torki reported that experimental diets did not show any significant difference in overall egg production, egg mass, FCR, and feed intake, while eggshell weight was higher in the OP groups than in the control diet. |
[ |
||
| 0 or 9% OP with or without commercial cocktail enzyme | Zarei et al. indicated a reduction in egg production and blood triglycerides levels, and an increase of the yolk index in the 9% OP group, while there was no effect on feed intake and egg mass between OP and control groups, and between enzyme-fed and control groups. |
[ |
||
| Quail | 0, 50, or 100 g/kg OP (irradiated or not) | Abd El-Moneim et al. suggested that 5% OP or irradiated OP has the highest live BW and daily BW gain and the lowest values of daily feed intake and FCR, followed by the 10% OP group. |
[ |
|
| Laying quail | 0.1% Aspergillus awamori, 5% OP, 5% OP and A. awamori, 10% OP or 10% and 0.1% A. awamori | Abd El-Moneim et al. reported that the experimental diets had increased egg weight, and final BW, feed consumption, FCR, and egg mass were not affected by dietary treatment. |
[ |
|
| Olive pulp and commercial enzyme blend | Broiler | Unprocessed OP (50 g/kg, 100 g/kg, 50 g/kg with ENZ, 100 g/kg with ENZ), processed OP (50 g/kg, 100 g/kg, 50 g/kg with ENZ, 100 g/kg with ENZ), and control groups (without OP, and without OP with ENZ) | Sayehban et al. reported that carcass traits such as live BW, de-feathered BW, full abdomen carcass weight, empty abdomen carcass weight, eviscerated carcass weight, breast weight, thigh, and drumstick weight (legs), wing weight, and relative breast and wing weights were not different among dietary treatments. |
[ |
| Olive meal (OM) | Broiler | 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8% and enzymes | Sateri et al. indicated that BW and BW gain, feed intake, feed conversion efficiency, carcass traits, meat cuts (breast, drumsticks, and wings), the cecum microbiota, blood LDL and HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, total protein, albumin, glucose, and UA were not significantly different among the dietary groups. |
[ |
| Olive pomace (OPO) | Broiler | 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5% | Nasopoulou et al. reported higher growth rates at the 5 and 7.5% OPO groups, while the 5% OPO group had more potent in vitro antithrombotic properties compared to the control group. |
[ |
| Olive pomace extract (OPE) | Broiler | Control (no additives), 100 ppm monensin, 500 or 1500 ppm OPE | Herrero-Encinas et al. found that OPE addition up to 1500 ppm did not affect daily gain, feed intake, and FCR. |
[ |
| Control (no additives), 100 pm monensin, or 750 ppm OPE | Herrero-Encinas et al. reported that average daily gain was increased and FCR decreased in the experimental diets with no effect on feed intake. |
[ |
||
| Olive oil mill wastewater (OMWW) permeate or retentate | Broiler | - | Gerasopoulos et al. reported that broilers of the experimental groups had lower protein oxidation and lipid peroxidation levels and higher total antioxidant capacity in plasma and tissues. |
[ |
| Pomegranate peel powder (PPP) | Broiler | Control group, or 0.5% colostin antibiotic, or 2, 3, 4 g PPP/kg, or 2, 3, 4 g PPP and 1 cm3 probiotic | Abdel Baset et al. reported that live BW (5 wk) and BW gain (1–5 wk) were highest in the 2 and 4 g PPP, and positive control (PC, with antibiotic supplementation) groups compared to the negative control (NC, without additives) and other PPP groups. |
[ |
| Laying hen | 2 or 4% | Eid et al. reported that the negative effects of oxidative stress induced by dexamethasone on BW and egg production were alleviated in the PPP groups. |
[ |
|
| Quail | 2.5, 5.0, or 7.5% | Abbas et al. found that final BW was similar between treatments, while the 7.5% PPP group had the highest feed intake, and the feed intake in 2.5 and 5% PPP groups were not affected. |
[ |
|
| Pomegranate peel (PP) | Broiler | Control (no additives), vitamin E (100 mg/kg), or pomegranate peel (15,000 mg/kg), and others | Rajani et al. reported that the experimentally induced ascites mortality and MDA occurrence in meat (PP inclusion had the best effect) were decreased, and the right ventricular weight ratio was improved in the experimental groups. |
[ |
| 2, 4, 6, or 8 g/kg PP or 0, 200 g/ton α-tocopherol acetate (vitamin E) | Akuru et al. indicated that the feed intake and FCR were increased in the vitamin E group at wk 3, but FCR was comparable to the control, 4, and 6 g/kg PP groups. |
[ |
||
| Urea treated pomegranate peel (UTPP) | Broiler | 0, 15, 30, or 50 g/kg | Hosseini-Vashan and Raei-Moghadam reported that BW gain increased during the start and overall experimental periods but decreased feed intake during starter and growing periods. |
[ |
| Pomegranate by-products (PB) | Broiler | 0, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0% | Ahmed et al. reported that crude protein and moisture contents were elevated, while ether extract in breast and thigh meat and cholesterol in breast meat were reduced. |
[ |
| Fermented pomegranate byproducts (FPB) | Broiler | 0, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0% | Bostami et al. reported that average daily weight gain during the finisher and overall period was increased in 1 and 2% FPB groups, while daily feed intake and FCR were not affected. |
[ |
| 0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0% | Ahmed et al. reported that increasing levels of FPB linearly increased weight gain and feed intake, and linearly reduced FCR. |
[ |
||
| Raw (PPO) and fermented (FPPO) pomegranate pomace | Broiler | Control (no PP), 5 or 10 g/kg PPO, and 5 or 10 g/kg FPPO | Gungor et al. indicated that BW and FCR, serum GPx, SOD, and CAT levels were not affected in the experimental groups; however, malondialdehyde in breast meat was reduced. |
[ |
| Pomegranate pulp (PPU) | Broiler | 0, 40, 70, or 100 g/kg | Hosseini-Vashan and Raei-Moghadam investigated the effect of PPU in thermoneutral and heat-stressed broilers in comparison with no added PPU diets. |
[ |
| Pomegranate seed oil (PSO) | Broiler | 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5% with or without 2% linseed oil (LO) | Manterys et al. reported that white blood cell levels were increased in 0.5 and 1% PSO supplemented with LO groups. |
[ |
| 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5% PSO with 0.0 or 2.0% LO | Szymczyk and Szczurek reported that the feed-to-gain ratio was enhanced with PSO inclusion in the diet of broilers (22–42 d). |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 2.5% sunflower oil (control), 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5% punicic acid (CLnA) | Kostogrys et al. reported that the color of the eggs’ yolk was improved, while the hardness of hard-boiled egg yolks was not influenced. |
[ |
|
| Pomegranate and grape seed oil (GPO) | Broiler | 2% replacement of soybean oil (5% in the diet) | Banaszkiewicz et al. indicated that the source of oil did not influence the slaughter yield, basic nutrients, and physical characteristics of the breast and thigh muscles. |
[ |
| Tomato pomace (TP) | Broiler | 0, 5, 10, or 15% substitution of SBM | Ghazi and Drakhshan reported that feed intake, weight gain, and FCR were similar between the treatments. |
[ |
| 0% TP (rearing under thermoneutral zone), 0, 3 or 5% TP (heat-stressed broilers) | Hosseini-Vashan et al. indicated that BW and production index were elevated, and FCR was reduced in the 5% TP group (1–28 d), while reduced serum triglycerides and higher HDL cholesterol concentration were recorded in 28 d. |
[ |
||
| Grower chicks | 0, 5, 10, 15, or 20% | Yitbarek reported that TP groups recorded higher dry matter intake than the control group, and daily BW gain was highest in the 5% TP group. |
[ |
|
| Laying hen | 0, 150, 170, or 190 g/kg | Salajegheh et al. found that BW, feed intake, egg production, FCR, egg weight, egg mass, eggshell weight, eggshell thickness, and Haugh unit were not affected by the dietary inclusion of TP. |
[ |
|
| Tomato meal (TM) | Laying hen | 0, 80, or 150 g/kg | Yannakopoulos et al. indicated that body weight gain, egg number, feed consumption, mortality, eggshell quality, and egg shape index were not influenced in the experimental groups. |
[ |
| Tomato pulp (TPU) | Laying hen | Control (no additives), 28 g/ton carophyll, 40, 60, 80, or 120 g/kg TPU | Dotas et al. reported that egg production was not affected in the experimental groups, and food consumption, food efficiency, and egg weight were not different between the control and TPU groups. |
[ |
| 0, 50, 100, or 150 kg/t | Jafari et al. reported that egg production and egg mass of hens (27–38 wk) were higher by the inclusion of up to 100 kg/t than the control, while final BW, egg weight, daily feed consumption, eggshell weight, eggshell thickness, Haugh units, and yolk color were similar to the control group. |
[ |
||
| Quail | 0, 5, 10% | Nikolakakis et al. reported that final BW, daily feed consumption, FCR, and carcass weight, yield, and composition were similar among treatments, while ether extract content was lower in both TPU groups. |
[ |
|
| 0, 5, 10% | Botsoglou et al. indicated that MDA values in raw meat were higher after 6–9 d in the 10% TPU group and lower in the 5% TPU group. |
[ |
||
| Tomato powder (TPO) | Laying hen | 0, 5, or 10 g/kg | Akdemir et al. indicated that feed intake, egg production, egg weight, and yolk color increased linearly, and feed conversion decreased linearly with increment dietary levels of TPO. |
[ |
| Quail | 0, 2.5, 5% | Sahin et al. reported that increasing dietary levels of TPO linearly increased feed intake, live weight gain, and feed conversion under heat stress conditions but not under thermoneutral conditions. |
[ |
|
| Tomato pulp powder (TPP) | Quail | 0, 2, 4, 6, 8% | Jouzi et al. reported that feed intake was similar between treatments, while BW and pre-slaughter weight was elevated in the 4% TPP group compared to the other groups. |
[ |
| Tomato waste juice (TWJ) | Broiler | 0, 40, 80, 120 mL/d | Wahyuni et al. reported that the relative weight of the thymus, duodenum, jejunum, caecum, and liver was elevated in broilers (15–35 d) fed on TWJ. |
[ |
| Tomato waste (TW) | Broiler | 0, 5, 10, 15, or 20% | Lira et al. reported that feed intake was elevated during 1–7, 8–14, and 29–36 d, while gain weight and FCR deteriorated up to 29 d but not during 29–42 d. |
[ |
| Laying hen | 5% flaxseed and 2.5, 5.0, or 7.5% TW | Panaite et al. reported that average daily feed intake and laying percentage were reduced in the 5 and 7.5% TW groups in comparison with the control. |
[ |
|
| Sugar beet pulp | Broiler | 0, 30 g/kg oat hulls (OH) or SBP | Gonzalez-Alvarado et al. indicated that BW gain and feed-to-gain ratio were improved in the SBP diets compared to the control. |
[ |
| 0, 25, 50, and 75 g/kg SBP or OH | Jimenez-Moreno et al. reported that feed intake or BW gain was not affected, while FCR was enhanced quadratically in the SBP and OH groups (1–18 d). |
[ |
||
| 0, 25, 50, and 75 g of either OH or SBP | Jimenez-Moreno et al. reported that the relative weight of the gastrointestinal tract with digesta contents increased linearly with increasing levels of dietary fiber. |
[ |
||
| 0%, 7.5% SBP, or 15% potato peel, with or without enzyme | Abdel-Hafeez et al. reported that the SBP or potato peel inclusion decreased BW, while feed intake, weight gain, and feed conversion were lower in the SBP group but were not different in the potato peel group compared to the control. |
[ |
||
| 0%, 7.5% SBP, or 15% potato peel, with or without enzyme | Abdel-Daim et al. indicated that the digestibility of ether extract, crude fiber, or crude protein, physicochemical and sensory characteristics of the breast or thigh muscles, and intestinal morphology during starter and growing periods were not affected in the experimental groups. |
[ |
||
| 23, 46, and 92 g/kg | Petterson and Razdan reported that the ileal digestibilities of organic matter, crude fat, and crude protein were reduced with increasing dietary levels of SBP. |
[ |
||
| Laying hen | 0, 3, 5, 7% | Selim and Hussein reported that feed intake, egg production, egg weight and mass, and improved FCR, yolk color core, and Haugh unit linearly increased with SBP addition. |
[ |
|
| Quail | 0, 20, 40 g/kg and multi-enzyme 0, 1, or 2 g/kg | Alagawany and Attia reported that feed consumption, FCR, egg number, egg weight, egg mass, external and internal egg quality, N consumption, N in egg, N excretion, N fecal, N intake, and N retention were not affected by SBP inclusion. |
[ |
|
| Sugar beet meal | Broiler | Control, 2.5% sugar beet meal, 2.5% neem leaf meal, 2.5% linseed meal, or 2.5% coriander seed meal | Kumari et al. reported enhanced BW, weight gain, feed conversion rate, performance index, and giblet relative weight in the sugar beet meal-fed group. | [ |
| Aqueous methanolic extract of sugar beet | Broiler | 100, 200, and 300 mg/kg BW, vitamin E 87 mg/kg, Baycox® 1 mL/L of water, PBS group (infected non medicated control group). Group served as non-infected, non-medicated group | Abbas et al. indicated that sugar beet exhibited good anticoccidial activity, which was evaluated based on the improvement of FCR, lesion score, oocyst score, and oocysts per g of feces. |
[ |
| Brewers dried grains (BDG) | Broiler | Substitution of maize with 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100% BDG | Ironkwe and Bamgbose reported that the 50% BDG group exhibited the highest final live weight, daily weight gains, and the lowest FCR, followed by the 25, 75, and 100% BDG groups, with the lowest. |
[ |
| 0, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40% BDG and sand 0 or 4% | Onwudike indicated that sand incorporation in diets improved digestibility, gain, and FCR, while the inclusion of higher than 15% to 20% BDG decreased feed conversion efficiency. |
[ |
||
| Brewers spent grains (BSG) | Broiler | Group I (whole BSG without xylanase), group II (whole BSG and xylanase top-dressed), group III (whole BSG and xylanase pre-treated), group IV (ground BSG without xylanase), group V (ground BSG and xylanase top-dressed), group VI (ground BSG and xylanase pre-treated) | Denstadli et al. reported that weight gain was not different among treatments, but feed intake increased by the xylanase supplementation and by the addition of coarse BSG. |
[ |
| Fermented brewers spent grains, mineral sorbing complex, and probiotics | Quail | 0 or 1.5% | Yurina et al. reported that an additive consisting of fermented brewers spent grains, mineral sorbing complex, and probiotics increased gross egg production by 3.8%, intensity of egg production by 2.3%, the intensity of egg production by 2.3%, decreased feed consumption for the production of 1 dozen eggs by 5.5%, and increased FCR in comparison with the control group. |
[ |
ALA = α-linolenic acid; AO = antioxidants; AP = apple pomace; BDG = brewers dried grains; BL = Bacillus licheniformis; BSG = brewers spent grains; BW = body weight; CAT = catalase; CLA = conjugated linoleic acid; CLnA = punicic acid; CP = citrus pulp; CW = citrus waste; DCP = dried citrus pulp; DCSP = dried Citrus sinensis peel; DDGS = dried distillers’ grains with solubles; DLP = dried lemon (Citrus aurantifulia) pulp; DM = dry matter; ENZ = enzyme; FCR = feed conversion ratio; FGP = fermented grape pomace; FPB = fermented pomegranate byproducts; FPPO = fermented pomegranate pomace; GOT = glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase; GP = grape pomace; GPC = grape pomace concentrate; GPO = grape seed oil; GPT = glutamic-pyruvic transaminase; GPx = glutathione peroxidase; GSH = glutathione; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; HPSFM = high-protein sunflower meal; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; LFSFM = low-fiber sun flower meal; LO = linseed oil; LO-DDGS = low-oil distillers dried grains with solubles; MDA = malondialdehyde; NC = negative control; OC = olive cake; OH = oat hulls; OL = olive leaves; OM = olive meal; OMWW = olive oil mill wastewater; OP = olive pulp; OPE = olive pomace extract; OPO = olive pomace; OPU = orange pulp; PB = pomegranate by-products; PC = positive control; PP = pomegranate peel; PPO = raw pomegranate pomace; PPP = pomegranate peel powder; PPU = pomegranate pulp; PSO = pomegranate seed oil; SBM = soybean meal; SBP = sugar beet pulp; SC = sunflower cake; SFA = saturated fatty acids; SFM = sunflower meal; SOD = superoxide dismutase; TBA = thiobarbituric acid; TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; TM = tomato meal; TP = tomato pomace; TPO = tomato powder; TPP = tomato pulp powder; TPU = tomato pulp; TW = tomato waste; TWJ = tomato waste juice; UA = uric acid; USFA = unsaturated fatty acids; UTPP = urea-treated pomegranate peel; WGPF = wine-grape pomace flour.
Reported hazards found in agro-industrial by-products.
| Agro-Industrial |
Potential Hazards | References |
|---|---|---|
| Apple by-products | Amygdalin, pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoids and arsenic-based pesticides), patulin | [ |
| Citrus pulp | PCBs and PCDD/Fs 1, ochratoxin A, pesticides (e.g., imidacloprid, abamectin, cypermethrin, and prochloraz | [ |
| Sunflower meal | Alternariol, alternariol monomethyl ether and tenuazonic acid (Alternaria spp. toxins), |
[ |
| Wheat dried distillers’ grain with solubles | Deoxynivalenol, enniatin B, ochratoxin, antibiotics |
[ |
| Corn dried distillers’ grain with solubles | Aflatoxins (e.g., AFB1), deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, T-2 toxin, zearalenone, ochratoxin | [ |
| Grape pomace | Heavy metals (e.g., Al, As, Pb, Cd, and Ni), toxins (e.g., ochratoxin A, biogenic amines) | [ |
| Sugar beet pulp | Heavy metals (e.g., Al, As, Pb, Cd, and Ni) | [ |
| Sugar beet pulp silage | ochratoxin A, zearalenone, mycophenolic acid and roquefortine C | |
| Brewery by-products | Aflatoxins (e.g., AFB1), ochratoxin A, fumonisin B1, acetyl-deoxynivalenols (ADONs), deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside (DON-3-Glc), HT-2, enniatins, patulin and gliotoxin, pesticides | [ |
1 PCDD/F, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls.
References
1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. 2022; Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
2. Grumbine, R.E.; Xu, J.; Ma, L. An overview of the problems and prospects for circular agriculture in sustainable food systems in the anthropocene. Circ. Agric. Syst.; 2021; 1, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48130/CAS-2021-0003]
3. WHOFAOIFADUNICEFWFP. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cc0639en/cc0639en.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
4. Brunetti, L.; Leuci, R.; Colonna, M.A.; Carrieri, R.; Celentano, F.E.; Bozzo, G.; Loiodice, F.; Selvaggi, M.; Tufarelli, V.; Piemontese, L. Food industry byproducts as starting material for innovative, green feed formulation: A sustainable alternative for poultry feeding. Molecules; 2022; 27, 4735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27154735]
5. Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Herrero, M.; Van Hal, O.; Röös, E.; Muller, A.; Garnett, T.; Gerber, P.J.; Schader, C.; De Boer, I.J.M. Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob. Change Biol.; 2018; 24, pp. 4185-4194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14321]
6. Philippini, R.R.; Martiniano, S.E.; Ingle, A.P.; Marcelino, P.R.F.; Silva, G.M.; Barbosa, F.G.; dos Santos, J.C.; da Silva, S.S. Agroindustrial byproducts for the generation of biobased products: Alternatives for sustainable biorefineries. Front. Energy Res.; 2020; 8, 152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00152]
7. van Hal, O.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Muller, A.; de Vries, S.; Erb, K.H.; Schader, C.; Gerrits, W.J.J.; van Zanten, H.H.E. Upcycling food leftovers and grass resources through livestock: Impact of livestock system and productivity. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 219, pp. 485-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.329]
8. Sonaiya, E.B.; Swan, S.E.J. Small-Scale Poultry Production-Technical Guide; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2004.
9. Esposito, B.; Sessa, M.R.; Sica, D.; Malandrino, O. Towards circular economy in the agri-food sector. A systematic literature review. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 7401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12187401]
10. Correddu, F.; Lunesu, M.F.; Buffa, G.; Atzori, A.S.; Nudda, A.; Battacone, G.; Pulina, G. Can Agro-Industrial By-Products Rich in Polyphenols be Advantageously Used in the Feeding and Nutrition of Dairy Small Ruminants?. Animals; 2020; 10, 131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10010131]
11. Thieme, O.; Makkar, H.P.S. Utilisation of loss and waste during the food-production cycle as livestock feed. Anim. Prod. Sci.; 2017; 57, pp. 601-607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN16183]
12. Angulo, J.; Mahecha, L.; Yepes, S.A.; Yepes, A.M.; Bustamante, G.; Jaramillo, H.; Valencia, E.; Villamil, T.; Gallo, J. Nutritional evaluation of fruit and vegetable waste as feedstuff for diets of lactating Holstein cows. J. Environ. Manag.; 2012; 95, pp. S210-S214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.050]
13. Sadh, P.K.; Duhan, S.; Duhan, J.S. Agro-industrial wastes and their utilization using solid state fermentation: A review. Bioresour. Bioprocess.; 2018; 5, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0187-z]
14. Makkar, H.P.S. Opinion paper: Food loss and waste to animal feed. Animal; 2017; 11, pp. 1093-1095. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000702]
15. Leinonen, I.; Kyriazakis, I. How can we improve the environmental sustainability of poultry production?. Proc. Nutr. Soc.; 2016; 75, pp. 265-273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000094]
16. Eliopoulos, C.; Arapoglou, D.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Markou, G.; Haroutounian, S.A. Conversion of brewers’ spent grain into proteinaceous animal feed using solid state fermentation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 29562-29569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15495-w]
17. Azizi, M.; Seidavi, A.R.; Ragni, M.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Practical applications of agricultural wastes in poultry feeding in Mediterranean and Middle East regions. Part 1: Citrus, grape, pomegranate and apple wastes. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.; 2018; 74, pp. 489-498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933918000478]
18. Chuang, W.-Y.; Lin, L.-J.; Shih, H.-D.; Shy, Y.-M.; Chang, S.-C.; Lee, T.-T. The Potential Utilization of High-Fiber Agricultural By-Products as Monogastric Animal Feed and Feed Additives: A Review. Animals; 2021; 11, 2098. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11072098]
19. Abdel-Moneim, A.l.-M.E.; Shehata, A.M.; Alzahrani, S.O.; Shafi, M.E.; Mesalam, N.M.; Taha, A.E.; Swelum, A.A.; Arif, M.; Fayyaz, M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E. The role of polyphenols in poultry nutrition. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr.; 2020; 104, pp. 1851-1866. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13455]
20. Yang, K.; Qing, Y.; Yu, Q.; Tang, X.; Chen, G.; Fang, R.; Liu, H. By-product feeds: Current understanding and future perspectives. Agriculture; 2021; 11, 207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030207]
21. Salami, S.A.; Luciano, G.; O’Grady, M.N.; Biondi, L.; Newbold, C.J.; Kerry, J.P.; Priolo, A. Sustainability of feeding plant by-products: A review of the implications for ruminant meat production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2019; 251, pp. 37-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.02.006]
22. AAFCO. Official Feed Terms, Common or Usual Ingredient Names and Ingredient Definitions. Official Publication; Eyck, R.T. AAFCO: Champaign, IL, USA, 2021.
23. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Data. 2023; Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 1 December 2022).
24. Gołębiewska, E.; Kalinowska, M.; Yildiz, G. Sustainable Use of Apple Pomace (AP) in Different Industrial Sectors. Materials; 2022; 15, 1788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15051788]
25. Rao, M.; Bast, A.; de Boer, A. Valorized Food Processing By-Products in the EU: Finding the Balance between Safety, Nutrition, and Sustainability. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 4428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13084428]
26. Aghili, A.H.; Toghyani, M.; Tabeidian, S.A. Effect of incremental levels of apple pomace and multi enzyme on performance, immune response, gut development and blood biochemical parameters of broiler chickens. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric.; 2019; 8, pp. 321-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40093-019-00305-8]
27. Gullón, B.; Yáñez, R.; Alonso, J.L.; Parajó, J.C. L-Lactic acid production from apple pomace by sequential hydrolysis and fermentation. Bioresour. Technol.; 2008; 99, pp. 308-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.12.018]
28. Colombino, E.; Ferrocino, I.; Biasato, I.; Cocolin, L.S.; Prieto-Botella, D.; Zduńczyk, Z.; Jankowski, J.; Milala, J.; Kosmala, M.; Fotschki, B. et al. Dried fruit pomace inclusion in poultry diet: Growth performance, intestinal morphology and physiology. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol.; 2020; 11, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40104-020-00464-z]
29. Heidarisafar, Z.; Sadeghi, G.; Karimi, A.; Azizi, O. Apple Peel Waste as a Natural Antioxidant for Heat-Stressed Broiler Chickens. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.; 2016; 48, pp. 831-835. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-016-1001-1]
30. Ghaemi, H.; Nobakht, A.; Razzaghzadeh, S. The Effect of Apple Pulp and Multi Enzyme on Performance and Blood Parameters in Native Laying Hens. J. Farm Anim. Physiol. Nutr.; 2014; 9, pp. 10-21.
31. Akhlaghi, A.; Ahangari, Y.J.; Zhandi, M.; Peebles, E.D. Reproductive Performance, Semen Quality, and Fatty Acid Profile of Spermatozoa in Senescent Broiler Breeder Roosters as Enhanced by the Long-Term Feeding of Dried Apple Pomace. Anim. Reprod. Sci.; 2014; 147, pp. 64-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.03.006]
32. Fiialovych, L.; Kyryliv, I. Laying Performance, Egg Quality and Hatching Results in Geese Fed with Dry Apple Pomaces. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootech.; 2016; 15, pp. 71-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21005/asp.2016.15.4.06]
33. Bampidis, V.A.; Robinson, P.H. Citrus by-Products as Ruminant Feeds: A Review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2006; 128, pp. 175-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.12.002]
34. Diarra, S.S. Peel Meals as Feed Ingredients in Poultry Diets: Chemical Composition, Dietary Recommendations and Prospects. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr.; 2018; 102, pp. 1284-1295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12954]
35. Abbasi, H.; Seidavi, A.; Liu, W.; Asadpour, L. Investigation on the Effect of Different Levels of Dried Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis) Pulp on Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Physiological and Biochemical Parameters in Broiler Chicken. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.; 2015; 22, pp. 139-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.09.006]
36. Alzawqari, M.H.; Al-Baddany, A.A.; Al-Baadani, H.H.; Alhidary, I.A.; Khan, R.U.; Aqil, G.M.; Abdurab, A. Effect of Feeding Dried Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis) Peel and Lemon Grass (Cymbopogon Citratus) Leaves on Growth Performance, Carcass Traits, Serum Metabolites and Antioxidant Status in Broiler During the Finisher Phase. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2016; 23, pp. 17077-17082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6879-7]
37. Ebrahimi, A.; Qotbi, A.A.A.; Seidavi, A. The Effects of Different Levels of Dried Citrus sinensis Peel on Broiler Carcass Quality. Acta Sci. Vet.; 2013; 41, 1169.
38. Ebrahimi, A.; Qotbi, A.A.A.; Seidavi, A.; Edens, F.W.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Selected Plasma Constituents of Broiler Chickens Fed Different Levels of Dried Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis) Peels. J. Anim. Plant Sci.; 2016; 26, pp. 949-955.
39. Behera, D.P.; Sethi, A.P.S.; Singh, C.; Singh, U.; Wadhwa, M. Effect of Citrus Waste on Blood Parameters of Broiler Birds with and without Cocktail of Enzymes. Vet. World; 2019; 12, pp. 483-488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.483-488]
40. Agu, P.N.; Oluremi, O.I.A.; Tuleun, C.D. Nutritional Evaluation of Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis) Fruit Peel as a Feed Resource in Broiler Production. Int. J. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 9, pp. 684-688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2010.684.688]
41. Diaz-Vargas, M.; Murakami, A.E.; Pintro, P.T.M.; Ospina-Rojas, I.C.; de Souza, C.H.P.; Eyng, C. Dehydrated Citrus Pulp in Broiler Diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci.; 2018; 99, pp. 33-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2017-0087]
42. Zoidis, E.; Simitzis, P.; Kampantais, D.; Katsoulas, P.; Pappas, A.C.; Papadomichelakis, G.; Goliomytis, M. Dietary Orange Pulp and Organic Selenium Effects on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Fatty Acid Profile, and Oxidative Stability Parameters of Broiler Chickens. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031534]
43. Mourão, J.L.; Pinheiro, V.M.; Prates, J.A.M.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Ferreira, L.M.A.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; Ponte, P.I.P. Effect of Dietary Dehydrated Pasture and Citrus Pulp on the Performance and Meat Quality of Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci.; 2008; 87, pp. 733-743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00411]
44. Basir, R.; Toghyani, M. Effect of Dietary Graded Levels of Dried Lemon (Citrus aurantifulia) Pulp on Performance, Intestinal Morphology, and Humoral Immunity in Broiler Chickens. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric.; 2017; 6, pp. 125-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40093-017-0159-5]
45. Lanza, M.; Fasone, V.; Galofaro, V.; Barbagallo, D.; Bella, M.; Pennisi, P. Citrus Pulp as an Ingredient in Ostrich Diet: Effects on Meat Quality. Meat Sci.; 2004; 68, pp. 269-275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.03.005]
46. Wang, C.; Gao, G.L.; Huang, J.X.; Zhang, K.S.; Zhong, H.; Wang, H.W.; Su, J.; Xie, M.; Wang, Q.G. Nutritive Value of Dry Citrus Pulp and Its Effect on Performance in Geese from 35 to 70 Days of Age. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2017; 26, pp. 253-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfw069]
47. Goliomytis, M.; Kostaki, A.; Avgoulas, G.; Lantzouraki, D.Z.; Siapi, E.; Zoumpoulakis, P.; Simitzis, P.; Deligeorgis, S.G. Dietary Supplementation with Orange Pulp (Citrus sinensis) Improves Egg Yolk Oxidative Stability in Laying Hens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2018; 244, pp. 28-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.07.015]
48. Nazok, A.; Rezaei, M.; Sayyahzadeh, H. Effect of Different Levels of Dried Citrus Pulp on Performance, Egg Quality, and Blood Parameters of Laying Hens in Early Phase of Production. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.; 2010; 42, pp. 737-742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-009-9481-x]
49. Florou-Paneri, P.; Babidis, V.; Kufidis, D.; Christaki, E.; Spais, A.B. Effect of Feeding Dried Citrus Pulp on Quail Laying Performance and Some Egg Quality Characteristics. Arch. Geflügelk.; 2001; 65, pp. 178-181.
50. Schieber, A.; Stintzing, F.C.; Carle, R. By-Products of Plant Food Processing as a Source of Functional Compounds—Recent Developments. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2001; 12, pp. 401-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00012-2]
51. Santana-Méridas, O.; González-Coloma, A.; Sánchez-Vioque, R. Agricultural Residues as a Source of Bioactive Natural Products. Phytochem. Rev.; 2012; 11, pp. 447-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11101-012-9266-0]
52. Fermoso, F.G.; Serrano, A.; Alonso-Fariñas, B.; Fernández-Bolaños, J.; Borja, R.; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, G. Valuable Compound Extraction, Anaerobic Digestion, and Composting: A Leading Biorefinery Approach for Agricultural Wastes. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2018; 66, pp. 8451-8468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b02667]
53. Bocco, A.; Cuvelier, M.-E.; Richard, H.; Berset, C. Antioxidant Activity and Phenolic Composition of Citrus Peel and Seed Extracts. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 1998; 46, pp. 2123-2129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf9709562]
54. Coll, M.D.; Coll, L.; Laencina, J.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A. Recovery of Flavanones from Wastes of Industrially Processed Lemons. Z. Naturforchung; 1998; 206, pp. 404-407. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002170050282]
55. Li, J.; Trinh, H.K.; Mirmajlessi, S.M.; Haesaert, G.; Xhaferi, R.; Delaere, I.; Höfte, M.; Raymaekers, K.; Cammue, B.P.A.; Jonckheere, W. et al. Biopesticide and Plant Growth-Promoting Activity in Maize Distillers’ Dried Grains with Solubles. Ind. Crops Prod.; 2023; 193, 116175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.116175]
56. Lu, Y.; Foo, L.Υ. The Polyphenol Constituents of Grape Pomace. Food Chem.; 1999; 65, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(98)00245-3]
57. Trikas, E.D.; Melidou, M.; Papi, R.M.; Zachariadis, G.A.; Kyriakidis, D.A. Extraction, Separation and Identification of Anthocyanins from Red Wine by-Product and Their Biological Activities. J. Funct. Foods; 2016; 25, pp. 548-558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2016.06.033]
58. Obied, H.K.; Bedgood, D.R.J.; Prenzler, P.D.; Robards, K. Effect of Processing Conditions, Prestorage Treatment, and Storage Conditions on the Phenol Content and Antioxidant Activity of Olive Mill Waste. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2008; 56, pp. 3925-3932. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf703756d]
59. Kalogeropoulos, N.; Chiou, A.; Pyriochou, V.; Peristeraki, A.; Karathanos, V.T. Bioactive Phytochemicals in Industrial Tomatoes and Their Processing Byproducts. LWT—Food Sci. Technol.; 2012; 49, pp. 213-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.12.036]
60. Čolović, D.; Rakita, S.; Banjac, V.; Đuragić, O.; Čabarkapa, I. Plant Food by-Products as Feed: Characteristics, Possibilities, Environmental Benefits, and Negative Sides. Food Rev. Int.; 2019; 35, pp. 363-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2019.1573431]
61. Ditta, Y.A.; King, A.J. Recent Advances in Sunflower Seed Meal as an Alternate Source of Protein in Broilers. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.; 2017; 73, pp. 527-542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917000423]
62. Golob, P.; Farrell, G.; Orchard, J.E. Crop Post-Harvest: Principles and Practice. Crop Post-Harvest: Science and Technology; Farell Golob, G.P.; Orchard, J.E. John Wiley & Sons: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; Available online: https://docplayer.net/49528915-Crop-post-harvest-science-and-technology.html (accessed on 1 December 2022).
63. Pedrosa, M.M.; Muzquiz, M.; García-Vallejo, C.; Burbano, C.; Cuadrado, C.; Ayet, G.; Robredo, L.M. Determination of Caffeic and Chlorogenic Acids and Their Derivatives in Different Sunflower Seeds. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2000; 80, pp. 459-464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(200003)80:4<459::AID-JSFA549>3.0.CO;2-O]
64. Senkoylu, N.; Dale, N. Sunflower Meal in Poultry Diets: A Review. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.; 2007; 55, pp. 153-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19990011]
65. Sangsoponjit, S.; Suphalucksana, W.; Srikijkasemwat, K. Effect of Feeding Sunflower Meal on the Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Broiler Chickens. Chem. Eng. Trans.; 2017; 58, pp. 841-846.
66. Moghaddam, H.N.; Salari, S.; Arshami, J.; Golian, A.; Maleki, M. Evaluation of the Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal and Its Effect on Performance, Digestive Enzyme Activity, Organ Weight, and Histological Alterations of the Intestinal Villi of Broiler Chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2012; 21, pp. 293-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2011-00396]
67. Araújo, L.F.; da Silva Araújo, C.S.; Petroli, N.B.; de Laurentiz, A.C.; de Albuquerque, R.; de Trindade Neto, M.A. Sunflower Meal for Broilers of 22 to 42 Days of Age. R. Bras. Zootec.; 2011; 40, pp. 2142-2146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011001000011]
68. Araújo, W.A.G.; Albino, L.F.T.; Rostagno, H.S.; Hannas, M.I.; Pessoa, G.B.S.; Messias, R.K.G.; Lelis, G.R.; Ribeiro, V., Jr. Sunflower Meal and Enzyme Supplementation of the Diet of 21- to 42-D-Old Broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci.; 2014; 16, pp. 17-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-635x160217-24]
69. Tavernari, F.C.; Albino, L.F.T.; Morata, R.L. Inclusion of Sunflower Meal, with or without Enzyme Supplementation, in Broiler Diets. Braz. J. Poult. Sci.; 2008; 10, pp. 233-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2008000400007]
70. Gerzilov, V.; Petrov, P.B. Effects of Partial Substitution of Soybean Meal with High Protein Sunflower Meal in Broiler Diets. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.; 2022; 28, pp. 151-157.
71. Kyrkelanov, N.; Chobanova, S.; Atanasoff, A. Investigation of Possible Use of Compound Feeds with Different Level of High-Protein Sunflower Meal in Broiler Chickens Nutrition. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.; 2020; 26, pp. 121-125.
72. Chobanova, S. Effects of Compound Poultry Feed with Different Content of High-Protein Sunfl Ower Meal on Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.; 2019; 25, pp. 91-94.
73. Ciurescu, G.; Vasilachi, A.; Grigore, D.; Grosu, H. Growth Performance, Carcass Traits, and Blood Biochemistry of Broiler Chicks Fed with Low-Fibre Sunflower Meal and Phytase. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci.; 2019; 49, 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v49i4.15]
74. Berwanger, E.; Nunes, R.V.; De Oliveira, T.M.M.; Bayerle, D.F.; Bruno, L.D.G. Performance and Carcass Yield of Broilers Fed Increasing Levels of Sunflower Cake. Rev. Caatinga; 2017; 30, pp. 201-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252017v30n122rc]
75. De Oliveira, T.M.M.; Nunes, R.V.; Eyng, C.; Berwanger, E.; Bayerle, D.F. Sunflower Meal and Exogenous Enzymes in Initial Diets for Broilers. Rev. Caatinga; 2016; 29, pp. 996-1005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252016v29n425rc]
76. Horvatovic, M.P.; Glamocic, D.; Zikic, D.; Hadnadjev, T.D. Performance and Some Intestinal Functions of Broilers Fed Diets with Different Inclusion Levels of Sunflower Meal and Supplemented or Not with Enzymes. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic.; 2015; 17, pp. 25-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-635x170125-30]
77. Shi, S.R.; Lu, J.; Tong, H.B.; Zou, J.M.; Wang, K.H. Effects of Graded Replacement of Soybean Meal by Sunflower Seed Meal in Laying Hen Diets on Hen Performance, Egg Quality, Egg Fatty Acid Composition, and Cholesterol Content. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2012; 21, pp. 367-374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2011-00437]
78. Das, S.K.; Biswas, A.; Neema, R.P.; Maity, B. Effect of Soybean Meal Substitution by Different Concentrations of Sunflower Meal on Egg Quality Traits of White and Coloured Dwarf Dam Lines. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 51, pp. 427-433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.503489]
79. Wadhwa, M.; Bakshi, M.P.S. Chapter 10—Application of Waste-Derived Proteins in the Animal Feed Industry. Protein Byproducts; Dhillon, G.S. Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 161-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802391-4.00010-0]
80. Fan, W.; Sun, X.; Cui, G.; Li, Q.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Hu, B.; Chi, Z. A Strategy of Co-Fermentation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (Ddgs) and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks as Swine Feed. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.; 2022; pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2022.2027337]
81. Noblet, J.; Cozannet, P.; Skiba, F. Nutritional Value and Utilization of Wheat Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles in Pigs and Poultry. Biofuel Co-Products as Livestock Feed—Opportunities and Challenges; Makkar, H.P.S. FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; pp. 163-174.
82. Salim, H.M.; Kruk, Z.A.; Lee, B.D. Nutritive Value of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles as an Ingredient of Poultry Diets: A Review. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.; 2010; 66, pp. 411-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933910000504]
83. Pinotti, L.; Ottoboni, M.; Giromini, C.; Dell’Orto, V.; Cheli, F. Mycotoxin Contamination in the E. U. Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts. Toxins; 2016; 8, 45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxins8020045]
84. Shim, M.Y.; Pesti, G.M.; Bakalli, R.I.; Tillman, P.B.; Payne, R.L. Evaluation of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles as an Alternative Ingredient for Broilers. Poult. Sci.; 2011; 90, pp. 369-376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00727]
85. Damasceno, J.L.; Rocha, C.S.; Eyng, C.; Broch, J.; Savaris, V.D.L.; Wachholz, L.; Tesser, G.L.S.; Avila, A.S.; Pacheco, W.J.; Nunes, R.V. Corn Distillers’ Dried Grains with Solubles to Feed Broiler Chickens from 22 to 42 d of Age. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2020; 29, pp. 573-583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2020.03.004]
86. Loar, R.E.; Moritz, J.S.; Donaldson, J.R.; Corzo, A. Effects of Feeding Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles to Broilers from 0 to 28 Days Posthatch on Broiler Performance, Feed Manufacturing Efficiency, and Selected Intestinal Characteristics. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 89, pp. 2242-2250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00894]
87. Loar, R.E.; Donaldson, J.R.; Corzo, A. Effects of Feeding Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles to Broilers from 0 to 42 Days Posthatch on Broiler Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Selected Intestinal Characteristics. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2012; 21, pp. 48-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2011-00339]
88. Min, Y.N.; Li, L.; Waldroup, P.W.; Niu, Z.Y.; Wang, Z.P.; Gao, Y.P.; Liu, F.Z. Effects of Dietary Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles Concentrations on Meat Quality and Antioxidant Status and Capacity of Broiler Chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2012; 21, pp. 603-611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2011-00503]
89. Schilling, M.W.; Battula, V.; Loar, R.E.; Jackson, V.; Kin, S.; Corzo, A. Dietary Inclusion Level Effects of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles on Broiler Meat Quality. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 89, pp. 752-760. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00385]
90. Fries-Craft, K.; Bobeck, E.A. Evaluation of a High-Protein Ddgs Product in Broiler Chickens: Performance, Nitrogen-Corrected Apparent Metabolisable Energy, and Standardised Ileal Amino Acid Digestibility. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2019; 60, pp. 749-756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2019.1652884]
91. Guney, A.C.; Shim, M.Y.; Batal, A.B.; Dale, N.M.; Pesti, G.M. Effect of Feeding Low-Oil Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles on the Performance of Broilers. Poult. Sci.; 2013; 92, pp. 2070-2076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02699]
92. Benavides, P.T.; Cai, H.; Wang, M.; Bajjalieh, N. Life-Cycle Analysis of Soybean Meal, Distiller-Dried Grains with Solubles, and Synthetic Amino Acid-Based Animal Feeds for Swine and Poultry Production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2020; 268, 114607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114607]
93. Loar, R.E.; Schilling, M.W.; McDaniel, C.D.; Coufal, C.D.; Rogers, S.F.; Karges, K.; Corzo, A. Effect of Dietary Inclusion Level of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles on Layer Performance, Egg Characteristics, and Consumer Acceptability. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2010; 19, pp. 30-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2009-00072]
94. Masa’deh, M.K.; Purdum, S.E.; Hanford, K.J. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles in Laying Hen Diets Phosphorus. Poult. Sci.; 2011; 90, pp. 1960-1966. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01184]
95. El-Hack, M.E.A.; Mahrose, K.M.; Attia, F.A.M.; Swelum, A.A.; Taha, A.E.; Shewita, R.S.; Hussein, E.-S.O.S.; Alowaimer, A.N. Laying Performance, Physical, and Internal Egg Quality Criteria of Hens Fed Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles and Exogenous Enzyme Mixture. Animals; 2019; 9, 150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9040150]
96. Shalash, S.M.M.; El-Wafa, S.A.; Hassan, R.A.; Ramadan, Ν.A.; Mohamed, M.S.; El-Gabry, H.E. Evaluation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles as Feed Ingredient in Laying Hen Diets. Int. J. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 9, pp. 537-545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2010.537.545]
97. Sun, H.; Lee, E.J.; Samaraweera, H.; Persia, M.; Ahn, D.U. Effects of Increasing Concentrations of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles on Chemical Composition and Nutrient Content of Egg. Poult. Sci.; 2013; 92, pp. 233-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02346]
98. Abd El-Hack, M.E.; El-Hindawy, M.M.; Attia, A.I.; Mahrose, K.M. Does the Use of Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (Ddgs) in Layer Diets Affect the Nutrients Digestibility and Manure Pollution by Nitrogen and Phosphorous?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2017; 24, pp. 13335-13343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8960-2]
99. Wu-Haan, W.; Powers, W.; Angel, R.; Applegate, T.J. The Use of Distillers Dried Grains Plus Solubles as a Feed Ingredient on Air Emissions and Performance from Laying Hens. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 89, pp. 1355-1359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00471]
100. Ding, X.M.; Qi, Y.Y.; Zhang, K.Y.; Tian, G.; Bai, S.P.; Wang, J.P.; Peng, H.W.; Lv, L.; Xuan, Y.; Zeng, Q.F. Corn Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles as an Alternative Ingredient to Corn and Soybean Meal in Pekin Duck Diets Based on Its Predicted Ame and the Evaluated Standardized Ileal Digestibility of Amino Acids. Poult. Sci.; 2022; 101, 101974. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.101974]
101. Sirohi, R.; Tarafdar, A.; Singh, S.; Negi, T.; Gaur, V.K.; Gnansounou, E.; Bharathiraja, B. Green Processing and Biotechnological Potential of Grape Pomace: Current Trends and Opportunities for Sustainable Biorefinery. Bioresour. Technol.; 2020; 314, 123771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123771]
102. 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, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.09.016]
103. 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox10081250]
104. 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12172239]
105. Kumanda, C.; Mlambo, V.; Mnisi, C.M. Valorization of Red Grape Pomace Waste Using Polyethylene Glycol and Fibrolytic Enzymes: Physiological and Meat Quality Responses in Broilers. Animals; 2019; 9, 779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9100779]
106. Van Niekerk, R.F.; Mnisi, C.M.; Mlambo, V. Polyethylene Glycol Inactivates Red Grape Pomace Condensed Tannins for Broiler Chickens. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2020; 61, pp. 566-573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2020.1755014]
107. 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, pp. 210-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.01.004]
108. 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, pp. 508-516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ps/86.3.508]
109. 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11020364]
110. Turcu, R.P.; Panaite, T.D.; Untea, A.E.; Șoica, C.; Iuga, M.; Mironeasa, S. Effects of Supplementing Grape Pomace to Broilers Fed Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Enriched Diets on Meat Quality. Animals; 2020; 10, 947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10060947]
111. 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114343]
112. 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11071931]
113. Haščík, P.; Čech, M.; Čuboň, J.; Bobko, M.; Arpášová, H.; Pavelková, A.; Kačániová, M.; Tkáčová, J.; Čeryová, N. Effect of Grape Pomace Supplementation on Meat Performance of Broiler Chicken Ross 308. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci.; 2020; 10, pp. 140-144.
114. Jurčaga, L.; Bobko, M.; Haščík, P.; Bobková, A.; Demianová, A.; Belej, Ľ.; Kročko, M. Effect of Dietary Red Grape Pomace on Lipid Oxidation in Meat of Broiler Chickens. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci.; 2021; 10, e3769. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.3769]
115. Bennato, F.; Di Luca, A.; Martino, C.; Ianni, A.; Marone, E.; Grotta, L.; Ramazzotti, S.; Cichelli, A.; Martino, G. Influence of Grape Pomace Intake on Nutritional Value, Lipid Oxidation and Volatile Profile of Poultry Meat. Foods; 2020; 9, 508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9040508]
116. Reyes, P.; Urquiaga, I.; Echeverría, G.; Durán, E.; Morales, M.S.; Valenzuela, C. Wine Grape Pomace Flour in Broiler Diets Effects Growth and Some Meat Characteristics. Anim. Prod. Sci; 2020; 60, pp. 1210-1216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN19385]
117. Kasapidou, E.; Sossidou, E.N.; Zdragas, A.; Papadaki, C.; Vafeas, G.; Mitlianga, P. Effect of Grape Pomace Supplementation on Broiler Meat Quality Characteristics. Eur. Poult. Sci.; 2016; 80, pp. 135-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1399/eps.2016.135]
118. 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, pp. 307-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00297]
119. 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. Turkish J. Vet. Anim. Sci.; 2015; 39, pp. 406-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3906/vet-1403-64]
120. Ebrahimzadeh, S.K.; Navidshad, B.; Farhoomand, P.; Aghjehgheshlagh, F.M. 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, pp. 324-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v48i2.13]
121. 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, pp. 303-310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2015.1031785]
122. 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, pp. 141-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2019.01.003]
123. Fróes, H.G.; Jácome, I.M.T.D.; Tavares, R.A.; Garcia, R.G.; Domingues, C.H.F.; Bevilaqua, T.M.S.; Martinelli, M.; Naas, I.A.; Borille, R. Grape (Vitis Vinifera) Pomace Flour as Pigment Agent of Quail Eggs. Braz. J. Poult. Sci.; 2018; 20, pp. 183-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2017-0561]
124. Khdair, A.; Abu-Rumman, G. Sustainable Environmental Management and Valorization Options for Olive Mill Byproducts in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) Region. Processes; 2020; 8, 671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr8060671]
125. Khwaldia, K.; Attour, N.; Matthes, J.; Beck, L.; Schmid, M. Olive Byproducts and Their Bioactive Compounds as a Valuable Source for Food Packaging Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.; 2022; 21, pp. 1218-1253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12882]
126. 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, pp. 357-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.11.011]
127. Pečjak, M.; Levart, A.; Salobir, J.; Rezar, V. Effect of the Supplementation of Olive Leaves and Olive Cake on Growth Performance and Bone Mineralisation of Broiler Chickens. Acta Fytotech. Zootech.; 2020; 23, pp. 105-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15414/afz.2020.23.mi-fpap.105-111]
128. Al-Harthi, M.A. The Efficacy of Using Olive Cake as a by-Product in Broiler Feeding with or without Yeast. Ital. J. Anim. Sci.; 2016; 15, pp. 512-520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1194173]
129. Al-Harthi, M. The Effect of Olive Cake, with or without Enzymes Supplementation, on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Lymphoid Organs and Lipid Metabolism of Broiler Chickens. Braz. J. Poult. Sci.; 2017; 19, pp. 83-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2016-0311]
130. Al-Harthi, M.A.; Attia, Y.A.; El-Shafey, A.S.; Elgandy, M.F. Impact of Phytase on Improving the Utilisation of Pelleted Broiler Diets Containing Olive by-Products. Ital. J. Anim. Sci.; 2020; 19, pp. 310-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1740896]
131. Al-Harthi, M.A.; Attia, Y.A. Effect of Citric Acid on the Nutritive Value of Olive Cake in Broiler Diets. Eur. Poult. Sci.; 2016; 80, 153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1399/eps.2016.153]
132. Saleh, A.A.; Paray, B.A.; Dawood, M.A.O. Olive Cake Meal and Bacillus Licheniformis Impacted the Growth Performance, Muscle Fatty Acid Content, and Health Status of Broiler Chickens. Animals; 2020; 10, 695. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10040695]
133. Rebollada-Merino, A.; Ugarte-Ruiz, M.; Hernández, M.; Miguela-Villoldo, P.; Abad, D.; Cuesta-Álvaro, P.; Rodríguez-Lázaro, D.; de Juan, L.; Domínguez, L.; Rodríguez-Bertos, A. Dietary Supplementation with Fermented Defatted “Alperujo” Induces Modifications of the Intestinal Mucosa and Cecal Microbiota of Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci.; 2020; 99, pp. 5308-5315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.07.015]
134. Tufarelli, V.; Passantino, L.; Zupa, R.; Crupi, P.; Laudadio, V. Suitability of Dried Olive Pulp in Slow-Growing Broilers: Performance, Meat Quality, Oxidation Products and Intestinal Mucosa Features. Poult. Sci.; 2022; 101, 102230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102230]
135. Papadomichelakis, G.; Pappas, A.C.; Tsiplakou, E.; Symeon, G.K.; Sotirakoglou, K.; Mpekelis, V.; Fegeros, K.; Zervas, G. Effects of Dietary Dried Olive Pulp Inclusion on Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Broiler Chickens. Livest. Sci.; 2019; 221, pp. 115-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.01.023]
136. Sayehban, P.; Seidavi, A.; Dadashbeiki, M.; Ghorbani, A.; de Araújo, W.A.; Durazzo, A.; Lucarini, M.; Gabrielli, P.; Omri, B.; Teixeira Albino, L.F. et al. Olive Pulp and Exogenous Enzymes Feed Supplementation Effect on the Carcass and Offal in Broilers: A Preliminary Study. Agriculture; 2020; 10, 359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10080359]
137. Sayehban, P.; Seidavi, A.; Dadashbeiki, M.; Ghorbani, A.; Araújo, W.A.G.; Albino, L.F.T. Effects of Different Dietary Levels of Two Types of Olive Pulp and Exogenous Enzyme Supplementation on the Gastrointestinal Tract Size, Immunology and Hematology of Broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci.; 2015; 17, pp. 73-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-635XSPECIALISSUENutrition-PoultryFeedingAdditives073-086]
138. Branciari, R.; Galarini, R.; Giusepponi, D.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Forte, C.; Roila, R.; Miraglia, D.; Servili, M.; Acuti, G.; Valiani, A. Oxidative Status and Presence of Bioactive Compounds in Meat from Chickens Fed Polyphenols Extracted from Olive Oil Industry Waste. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9091566]
139. Nasopoulou, C.; Lytoudi, K.; Zabetakis, I. Evaluation of Olive Pomace in the Production of Novel Broilers with Enhanced in Vitro Antithrombotic Properties. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol.; 2018; 120, 1700290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.201700290]
140. Pappas, A.C.; Tsiplakou, E.; Papadomichelakis, G.; Mitsiopoulou, C.; Sotirakoglou, K.; Mpekelis, V.; Haroutounian, S.A.; Fegeros, K.; Zervas, G. Effects of Olive Pulp Addition to Broiler Diets on Performance, Selected Biochemical Parameters and Antioxidant Enzymes. J. Hell. Vet. Med.; 2019; 70, pp. 1687-1696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.21793]
141. Sayehban, P.; Seidavi, A.; Dadashbeiki, M.; Ghorbani, A.; Araújo, W.A.G.; Albino, L.F.T. Effects of Different Levels of Two Types of Olive Pulp with or without Exogenous Enzyme Supplementation on Broiler Performance and Economic Parameters. Braz. J. Poult. Sci.; 2016; 18, pp. 489-500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0060]
142. Sateri, S.; Seidavi, A.; Bouyeh, M.; Kutzler, M.; Neumann, P.; Laudadio, V.; Loperfido, F.; Tufarelli, V. Effect of Olive Meal and Supplemental Enzymes on Performance Traits, Blood Biochemistry, Humoral Immunity Response and Caecal Microbiota of Broilers. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci.; 2017; 47, pp. 804-812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v47i6.8]
143. Gerasopoulos, K.; Stagos, D.; Kokkas, S.; Petrotos, K.; Kantas, D.; Goulas, P.; Kouretas, D. Feed Supplemented with Byproducts from Olive Oil Mill Wastewater Processing Increases Antioxidant Capacity in Broiler Chickens. Food Chem. Toxicol.; 2015; 82, pp. 42-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2015.04.021]
144. Bonos, E.; Skoufos, I.; Petrotos, K.; Giavasis, I.; Mitsagga, C.; Fotou, K.; Vasilopoulou, K.; Giannenas, I.; Gouva, E.; Tsinas, A. et al. Innovative Use of Olive, Winery and Cheese Waste by-Products as Functional Ingredients in Broiler Nutrition. Vet. Sci.; 2022; 9, 290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9060290]
145. Petrotos, K.; Papaioannou, C.; Kokkas, S.; Gkoutsidis, P.; Skoufos, I.; Tzora, A.; Bonos, E.; Tsinas, A.; Giavasis, I.; Mitsagga, C. Optimization of the Composition of a Novel Bioactive Silage Produced by Mixing of Ground Maize Grains with Olive Mill Waste Waters, Grape Pomace and Feta Cheese Whey. AgriEngineering; 2021; 3, pp. 868-893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering3040055]
146. Herrero-Encinas, J.; Blanch, M.; Pastor, J.J.; Mereu, A.; Ipharraguerre, I.R.; Menoyo, D. Effects of a Bioactive Olive Pomace Extract from Olea Europaea on Growth Performance, Gut Function, and Intestinal Microbiota in Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci.; 2020; 99, pp. 2-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez467]
147. Herrero-Encinas, J.; Blanch, M.; Pastor, J.J.; Menoyo, D. Diet Supplementation with a Bioactive Pomace Extract from Olea Europaea Partially Mitigates Negative Effects on Gut Health Arising from a Short-Term Fasting Period in Broiler Chickens. Animals; 2020; 10, 349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10020349]
148. Afsari, M.; Mohebbifar, A.; Torki, M. Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Olive Pulp Supplemented with Probiotics on Productive Performance, Egg Quality and Blood Parameters of Laying Hens. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol.; 2013; 4, pp. 198-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9734/ARRB/2014/5212]
149. Zangeneh, S.; Torki, M. Effects of B-Mannanase Supplementing of Olive Pulp Included Diet on Performance of Laying Hens, Egg Quality Characteristics, Humoral and Cellular Immune Response and Blood Parameters. Glob. Vet.; 2011; 7, pp. 391-398.
150. Zarei, M.; Ehsani, M.; Torki, M. Productive Performance of Laying Hens Fed Wheat-Based Diets Included Olive Pulp with or without a Commercial Enzyme Product. Afr. J. Biotechnol.; 2011; 10, pp. 4303-4312.
151. Al-Harthi, M.A.; Attia, Y.A. Effect of Citric Acid on the Utilization of Olive Cake Diets for Laying Hens. Ital. J. Anim. Sci.; 2015; 14, 3966. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2015.3966]
152. Ozcan, C.; Cimrin, T.; Yakar, Y.; Alasahan, S. Effects of Olive Cake Meal on Serum Constituents and Fatty Acid Levels in Breast Muscle of Japanese Quail. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci.; 2020; 50, pp. 874-880. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v50i6.14]
153. Abd El-Moneim, A.E.-M.E.; Sabic, E.M.; Abu-Taleb, A.M. Influence of Dietary Supplementation of Irradiated or Non-Irradiated Olive Pulp on Biochemical Profile, Antioxidant Status and Immune Response of Japanese Quails. Biol. Rhythm Res.; 2019; 53, pp. 519-534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2019.1630919]
154. Abd El-Moneim, A.E.; Sabic, E.M. Beneficial Effect of Feeding Olive Pulp and Aspergillus Awamori on Productive Performance, Egg Quality, Serum/Yolk Cholesterol and Oxidative Status in Laying Japanese Quails. J. Anim. Feed. Sci.; 2019; 28, pp. 52-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22358/jafs/105537/2019]
155. Valenti, B.; Luciano, G.; Morbidini, L.; Rossetti, U.; Codini, M.; Avondo, M.; Priolo, A.; Bella, M.; Natalello, A.; Pauselli, M. Dietary Pomegranate Pulp: Effect on Ewe Milk Quality During Late Lactation. Animals; 2019; 9, 283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9050283]
156. Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Martínez-Zamora, L.; Castillejo, N.; Artés-Hernández, F. From Pomegranate Byproducts Waste to Worth: A Review of Extraction Techniques and Potential Applications for Their Revalorization. Foods; 2022; 11, 2596. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11172596]
157. Ahmed, S.T.; Islam, M.M.; Bostami, A.B.M.R.; Mun, H.-S.; Kim, Y.-J.; Yang, C.-J. Meat Composition, Fatty Acid Profile and Oxidative Stability of Meat from Broilers Supplemented with Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) by-Products. Food Chem.; 2015; 188, pp. 481-488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.140]
158. Bostami, A.B.M.R.; Ahmed, S.T.; Islam, M.M.; Mun, H.S.; Ko, S.Y.; Kim, S.S.; Yang, C.J. Growth Performance, Fecal Noxious Gas Emission and Economic Efficacy in Broilers Fed Fermented Pomegranate Byproducts as Residue of Fruit Industry. Int. J. Adv. Res.; 2015; 3, pp. 102-114.
159. Abdel Baset, S.; Ashour, E.A.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; El-Mekkawy, M.M. Effect of Different Levels of Pomegranate Peel Powder and Probiotic Supplementation on Growth, Carcass Traits, Blood Serum Metabolites, Antioxidant Status and Meat Quality of Broilers. Anim. Biotechnol.; 2020; 33, pp. 690-700. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2020.1825965] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33000991]
160. Akuru, E.A.; Mpendulo, C.T.; Oyeagu, C.E.; Nantapo, C.W.T. Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peel Powder Meal Supplementation in Broilers: Effect on Growth Performance, Digestibility, Carcase and Organ Weights, Serum and Some Meat Antioxidant Enzyme Biomarkers. Ital. J. Anim. Sci.; 2021; 20, pp. 119-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1870877]
161. Rajani, J.; Karimi Torshizi, M.A.; Rahimi, S. Control of Ascites Mortality and Improved Performance and Meat Shelf-Life in Broilers Using Feed Adjuncts with Presumed Antioxidant Activity. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2011; 170, pp. 239-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.09.001]
162. Ahmed, S.T.; Ko, S.Y.; Yang, C.J. Improving the Nutritional Quality and Shelf Life of Broiler Meat by Feeding Diets Supplemented with Fermented Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) by-Products. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2017; 58, pp. 694-703. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1363870] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28792239]
163. Gungor, E.; Altop, A.; Erener, G.; Coskun, I. Effect of Raw and Fermented Pomegranate Pomace on Performance, Antioxidant Activity, Intestinal Microbiota and Morphology in Broiler Chickens. Arch. Anim. Nutr.; 2021; 75, pp. 137-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2021.1894065]
164. Hosseini-Vashan, S.J.; Raei-Moghadam, M.S. Antioxidant and Immune System Status, Plasma Lipid, Abdominal Fat, and Growth Performance of Broilers Exposed to Heat Stress and Fed Diets Supplemented with Pomegranate Pulp (Punica granatum L.). J. Appl. Anim. Res.; 2019; 47, pp. 521-531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2019.1676756]
165. Hosseini-Vashan, S.J.; Sharifian, M.; Piray, A.H.; Fathi-Nasri, M.H. Growth Performance, Carcass and Blood Traits, Immunity, Jejunal Morphology and Meat Quality of Heat-Stressed Broiler Chickens Fed Urea-Treated Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peel. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2020; 267, 114553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114553]
166. Manterys, A.; Franczyk-Zarow, M.; Czyzynska-Cichon, I.; Drahun, A.; Kus, E.; Szymczyk, B.; Kostogrys, R.B. Haematological Parameters, Serum Lipid Profile, Liver Function and Fatty Acid Profile of Broiler Chickens Fed on Diets Supplemented with Pomegranate Seed Oil and Linseed Oil. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2016; 57, pp. 771-779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2016.1219977]
167. Szymczyk, B.; Szczurek, W. Effect of Dietary Pomegranate Seed Oil and Linseed Oil on Broiler Chicken’s Performance and Meat Fatty Acid Profile. J. Anim. Feed. Sci.; 2016; 25, pp. 37-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22358/jafs/65585/2016]
168. Banaszkiewicz, T.; Białek, A.; Tokarz, A.; Kaszperuk, K. Effect of Dietary Grape and Pomegranate Seed Oil on the Post-Slaughter Value and Physicochemical Properties of Muscles of Broiler Chickens. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment.; 2018; 17, pp. 199-209.
169. Eid, Y.; Kirrella, A.A.; Tolba, A.; El-Deeb, M.; Sayed, S.; El-Sawy, H.B.; Shukry, M.; Dawood, M.A.O. Dietary Pomegranate by-Product Alleviated the Oxidative Stress Induced by Dexamethasone in Laying Hens in the Pre-Peak Period. Animals; 2021; 11, 1022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11041022]
170. Kostogrys, R.B.; Filipiak-Florkiewicz, A.; Dereń, K.; Drahun, A.; Czyżyńska-Cichoń, I.; Cieślik, E.; Szymczyk, B.; Franczyk-Żarów, M. Effect of Dietary Pomegranate Seed Oil on Laying Hen Performance and Physicochemical Properties of Eggs. Food Chem.; 2017; 221, pp. 1096-1103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.11.051] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27979064]
171. Abbas, R.J.; Al-Salhie, K.C.K.; Al-Hummod, S.K. The Effect of Using Different Levels of Pomegranate (Punica granatum) Peel Powder on Productive and Physiological Performance of Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix Japonica). Livest. Res. Rural Dev.; 2017; 29, 231.
172. Lu, Z.; Wang, J.; Gao, R.; Ye, F.; Zhao, G. Sustainable Valorisation of Tomato Pomace: A Comprehensive Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 86, pp. 172-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.020]
173. Seidavi, A.R.; Azizi, M.; Ragni, M.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Practical Applications of Agricultural Wastes in Poultry Feeding in Mediterranean an Middle East Regions. Part 2: Tomato, Olive, Date, Sunflower Wastes. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.; 2018; 74, pp. 443-452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S004393391800051X]
174. Zuorro, A.; Fidaleo, M.; Lavecchia, R. Enzyme-Assisted Extraction of Lycopene from Tomato Processing Waste. Enzyme Microb. Technol.; 2011; 49, pp. 567-573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2011.04.020]
175. Del Valle, M.; Cámara, M.; Torija, M.-E. Chemical Characterization of Tomato Pomace. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2006; 86, pp. 1232-1236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2474]
176. Jafari, M.; Pirmohammadi, R.; Bampidis, V. The Use of Dried Tomato Pulp in Diets of Laying Hens. Int. J. Poult. Sci.; 2006; 5, pp. 618-622.
177. Ghazi, S.; Drakhshan, A. The Effects of Different Levels of Tomato Pomace in Broilers Chick Performance. Proceedings of the 12th European Poultry Conference; Verona, Italy, 10–14 September 2006.
178. Lira, R.C.; Rabello, C.B.; Mohaupt Marques Ludke, M.D.C.; Ferreira, P.V.; Lana, G.R.Q.; Valerio Lana, S.R. Productive Performance of Broiler Chickens Fed Tomato Waste. Rev. Bras. Zootec.; 2010; 39, pp. 1074-1081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010000500018]
179. Yitbarek, M.B. The Effect of Feeding Different Levels of Dried Tomato Pomace on the Performance of Rhode Island Red (Rir) Grower Chicks. Int. J. Livest. Prod.; 2013; 4, pp. 35-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5897/IJLP12.034]
180. Hosseini-Vashan, S.J.; Golian, A.; Yaghobfar, A. Growth, Immune, Antioxidant, and Bone Responses of Heat Stress-Exposed Broilers Fed Diets Supplemented with Tomato Pomace. Int. J. Biometeorol.; 2016; 60, pp. 1183-1192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00484-015-1112-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26589827]
181. Wahyuni, H.I.; Yudiarti, T.; Widiastuti, E.; Sugiharto, S.; Isroli, I.; Sartono, T.A. The Use of Tomato Waste Juice as an Antioxidant Source for Broiler Chickens. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2020; 518, 012006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/518/1/012006]
182. Dotas, D.; Zamanidis, S.; Balios, J. Effect of Dried Tomato Pulp on the Performance and Egg Traits of Laying Hens. Br. Poult. Sci.; 1999; 40, pp. 695-697. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669987106] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10670684]
183. Yannakopoulos, A.L.; Tserveni-Gousi, A.S.; Christaki, E.V. Effect of Locally Produced Tomato Meal on the Performance and the Egg Quality of Laying Hens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 1992; 36, pp. 53-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90085-K]
184. Akdemir, F.; Orhan, C.; Sahin, N.; Sahin, K.; Hayirli, A. Tomato Powder in Laying Hen Diets: Effects on Concentrations of Yolk Carotenoids and Lipid Peroxidation. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2012; 53, pp. 675-680. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.729142]
185. Panaite, T.D.; Nour, V.; Vlaicu, P.A.; Ropota, M.; Corbu, A.R.; Saracila, M. Flaxseed and Dried Tomato Waste Used Together in Laying Hens Diet. Arch. Anim. Nutr.; 2019; 73, pp. 222-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2019.1586500]
186. Salajegheh, M.H.; Ghazi, S.; Mahdavi, R.; Mozafari, O. Effects of Different Levels of Dried Tomato Pomace on Performance, Egg Quality and Serum Metabolites of Laying Hens. Afr. J. Biotechnol.; 2012; 11, pp. 15373-15379.
187. Jouzi, H.; Vali, N.; Pourreza, J. The Effects of Tomato Pulp Powder Supplementation on Performance and Some Blood Parameters in Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica). J. Agric. Biol. Sci.; 2015; 10, pp. 103-107.
188. Botsoglou, N.; Papageorgiou, G.; Nikolakakis, I.; Florou-Paneri, P.; Giannenas, I.; Dotas, V.; Sinapis, E. Effect of Dietary Dried Tomato Pulp on Oxidative Stability of Japanese Quail Meat. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2004; 52, pp. 2982-2988. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf030748b]
189. Nikolakakis, I.; Banakis, D.; Florou-Paneri, P.; Dotas, V.; Giannenas, I.; Botsoglou, N. Effect of Dried Tomato Pulp on Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Growing Quails. Arch. Geflügelkd; 2004; 68, pp. 34-38.
190. Sahin, N.; Orhan, C.; Tuzcu, M.; Sahin, K.; Kucuk, O. The Effects of Tomato Powder Supplementation on Performance and Lipid Peroxidation in Quail. Poult. Sci.; 2008; 87, pp. 276-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00207] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18212370]
191. Alagawany, M.; Attia, A. Effects of Feeding Sugar Beet Pulp and Avizyme Supplementation on Performance, Egg Quality, Nutrient Digestion and Nitrogen Balance of Laying Japanese Quail. Avian Biol. Res.; 2015; 8, pp. 79-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3184/175815515X14274754281188]
192. Ajila, C.M.; Brar, S.K.; Verma, M.; Tyagi, R.D.; Godbout, S.; Valéro, J.R. Bio-Processing of Agro-Byproducts to Animal Feed. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.; 2012; 32, pp. 382-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2012.659172] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22380921]
193. Kumari, P.; Kumar, K.; Kumar, S. Effect of Dietary Supplement of Sugar Beet, Neem Leaf, Linseed and Coriander on Growth Performance and Carcass Trait of Vanaraja Chicken. Vet. World; 2014; 7, pp. 639-643. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.639-643]
194. González-Alvarado, J.M.; Jiménez-Moreno, E.; González-Sánchez, D.; Lázaro, R.; Mateos, G.G. Effect of Inclusion of Oat Hulls and Sugar Beet Pulp in the Diet on Productive Performance and Digestive Traits of Broilers from 1 to 42 Days of Age. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2010; 162, pp. 37-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.08.010]
195. Jiménez-Moreno, E.; Frikha, M.; de Coca-Sinova, A.; Lázaro, R.P.; Mateos, G.G. Oat Hulls and Sugar Beet Pulp in Diets for Broilers. 2. Effects on the Development of the Gastrointestinal Tract and on the Structure of the Jejunal Mucosa. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2013; 182, pp. 44-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.03.012]
196. Jiménez-Moreno, E.; Frikha, M.; de Coca-Sinova, A.; García, J.; Mateos, G.G. Oat Hulls and Sugar Beet Pulp in Diets for Broilers 1. Effects on Growth Performance and Nutrient Digestibility. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2013; 182, pp. 33-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.03.011]
197. Abdel-Daim, A.S.A.; Tawfeek, S.S.; El-Nahass, E.S.; Hassan, A.H.A.; Youssef, I.M.I. Effect of Feeding Potato Peels and Sugar Beet Pulp with or without Enzyme on Nutrient Digestibility, Intestinal Morphology, and Meat Quality of Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. J.; 2020; 8, pp. 189-199.
198. Abdel-Hafeez, H.M.; Saleh, E.S.E.; Tawfeek, S.S.; Youssef, I.M.I.; Abdel-Daim, A.S.A. Utilization of Potato Peels and Sugar Beet Pulp with and without Enzyme Supplementation in Broiler Chicken Diets: Effects on Performance, Serum Biochemical Indices and Carcass Traits. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr.; 2018; 102, pp. 56-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12656]
199. Pettersson, D.; Razdan, A. Effects of Increasing Levels of Sugar-Beet Pulp in Broiler Chicken Diets on Nutrient Digestion and Serum Lipids. Br. J. Nutr.; 1993; 70, pp. 127-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN19930110]
200. Abbas, A.; Iqbal, Z.; Abbas, R.Z.; Khan, M.K.; Khan, J.A.; Sindhu, Z.D.; Mahmood, M.S.; Saleemi, M.K. In vivo Anticoccidial Effects of Beta Vulgaris (Sugar Beet) in Broiler Chickens. Microb. Pathog.; 2017; 111, pp. 139-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.07.052] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28826766]
201. Selim, S.; Hussein, E. Production Performance, Egg Quality, Blood Biochemical Constituents, Egg Yolk Lipid Profile and Lipid Peroxidation of Laying Hens Fed Sugar Beet Pulp. Food Chem.; 2020; 310, 125864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125864] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31780225]
202. Westendorf, M.L.; Wohlt, J.E. Brewing by-Products: Their Use as Animal Feeds. Vet. Clin. N. Am.—Food Anim. Pract.; 2002; 18, pp. 233-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(02)00016-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12235659]
203. Lynch, K.M.; Steffen, E.J.; Arendt, E.K. Brewers’ Spent Grain: A Review with an Emphasis on Food and Health. J. Inst. Brew.; 2016; 122, pp. 553-568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jib.363]
204. Stengel, G. Brewers Grains: The Industry. Proceedings of the Alternative Feeds for Dairy and Beef Cattle Symposium; Jordan, E.R. University of Missouri: Columbia, MO, USA, 1991; pp. 86-89.
205. Ironkwe, M.O.; Bamgbose, A.M. Effect of Replacing Maize with Brewer’s Dried Grain in Broiler Finisher Diet. Int. J. Poult. Sci.; 2011; 10, pp. 710-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2011.710.712]
206. Onwudike, O.C. The Effects of Dietary Sand on the Usage of Diets Containing Brewer’s Dried Grains by Growing Chicks. Poult. Sci.; 1986; 65, pp. 1129-1136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0651129]
207. Yurina, N.A.; Labutina, N.D.; Danilova, A.A.; Vlasov, A.B.; Khorin, B.V.; Yurin, D.A. Feed Additive for Quails Based on Fermented Brewer’s Spent Grain. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2021; 938, 012005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/938/1/012005]
208. Denstadli, V.; Westereng, B.; Biniyam, H.G.; Ballance, S.; Knutsen, S.H.; Svihus, B. Effects of Structure and Xylanase Treatment of Brewers’ Spent Grain on Performance and Nutrient Availability in Broiler Chickens. Br. Poult. Sci.; 2010; 51, pp. 419-426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.495745]
209. San Martin, D.; Ramos, S.; Zufía, J. Valorisation of Food Waste to Produce New Raw Materials for Animal Feed. Food Chem.; 2016; 198, pp. 68-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.11.035]
210. Kasapidou, E.; Sossidou, E.; Mitlianga, P. Fruit and Vegetable Co-Products as Functional Feed Ingredients in Farm Animal Nutrition for Improved Product Quality. Agriculture; 2015; 5, pp. 1020-1034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture5041020]
211. Georganas, A.; Giamouri, E.; Pappas, A.C.; Papadomichelakis, G.; Fortatos, S.; Manios, T.; Lasaridi, K.; Fegeros, K.; Tsiplakou, E.; Zervas, G. Redefining the Future of Catering Waste Application in Animal Diets—A Review on the Minimization of Potential Hazards in Catering Waste Prior to Application in Animal Diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2022; 289, 115334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115334]
212. Badaoui, O.; Djebli, A.; Hanini, S. Solar Drying of Apple and Orange Waste: Evaluation of a New Thermodynamic Approach, and Characterization Analysis. Renew. Energy; 2022; 199, pp. 1593-1605. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.09.098]
213. Pinotti, L.; Giromini, C.; Ottoboni, M.; Tretola, M.; Marchis, D. Review: Insects and Former Foodstuffs for Upgrading Food Waste Biomasses/Streams to Feed Ingredients for Farm Animals. Animal; 2019; 13, pp. 1365-1375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118003622] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30691544]
214. Morais, T.; Inácio, A.; Coutinho, T.; Ministro, M.; Cotas, J.; Pereira, L.; Bahcevandziev, K. Seaweed Potential in the Animal Feed: A Review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 8, 559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse8080559]
215. EFSA James, K.; Millington, A.; Randall, N. Food and Feed Safety Vulnerabilities in the Circular Economy. EFSA Support Publ.; 2022; 19, 7226E.
216. van Asselt, E.D.; Arrizabalaga-Larrañaga, A.; Focker, M.; Berendsen, B.J.A.; van de Schans, M.G.M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Chemical Food Safety Hazards in Circular Food Systems: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2022; pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2078784]
217. EC. Regulation (Ec) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 Laying Down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law, Establishing the European Food Safety Authority and Laying Down Procedures in Matters of Food Safety. Off. J. Eur. Communities; 2002; L 31, pp. 1-24.
218. Granby, K.; Mortensen, A.; Broesboel-Jensen, B. 21—Potential Contamination Issues Arising from the Use of Biofuel and Food Industry by-Products in Animal Feed. Animal Feed Contamination; Fink-Gremmels, J. Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; pp. 514-539.
219. Battilani, P.; Logrieco, A.F. Global Risk Maps for Mycotoxins in Wheat and Maize. Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chains; Leslie, J.F.; Logrieco, A.F. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 309-326.
220. Focker, M.; van Asselt, E.D.; Berendsen, B.J.A.; van de Schans, M.G.M.; van Leeuwen, S.P.J.; Visser, S.M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Review of Food Safety Hazards in Circular Food Systems in Europe. Food Res. Int.; 2022; 158, 111505. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111505]
221. Wu, F.; Munkvold, G.P. Mycotoxins in Ethanol Co-Products: Modeling Economic Impacts on the Livestock Industry and Management Strategies. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2008; 56, pp. 3900-3911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf072697e]
222. Boudra, H.; Rouillé, B.; Lyan, B.; Morgavi, D.P. Presence of Mycotoxins in Sugar Beet Pulp Silage Collected in France. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2015; 205, pp. 131-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.04.010]
223. van der Spiegel, M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Marvin, H.J.P. Effects of Climate Change on Food Safety Hazards in the Dairy Production Chain. Food Res. Int.; 2012; 46, pp. 201-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.12.011]
224. FAOWHO. Hazards Associated with Animal Feed. Report of the Joint Fao/Who Expert Meeting—12–15 May 2015. FAO Animal Production and Health Report No. 13; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
225. Schmid, P.; Gujer, E.; Degen, S.; Zennegg, M.; Kuchen, A.; Wüthrich, C. Levels of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Food of Animal Origin. The Swiss Dioxin Monitoring Program. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2002; 50, pp. 7482-7487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf025669z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12452680]
226. den Hartog, J. 26—The Gmp+ Feed Safety Assurance (Fsa) Scheme. Animal Feed Contamination; Fink-Gremmels, J. Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; pp. 625-649.
227. Guillén, M.D.; Sopelana, P.; Palencia, G. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Olive Pomace Oil. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2004; 52, pp. 2123-2132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf035259q] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053562]
228. Leontopoulos, S.; Skenderidis, P.; Petrotos, K.; Giavasis, I. Corn Silage Supplemented with Pomegranate (Punica granatum) and Avocado (Persea Americana) Pulp and Seed Wastes for Improvement of Meat Characteristics in Poultry Production. Molecules; 2021; 26, 5901. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules26195901] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34641445]
229. Adama, T.Z.; Ogunbajo, S.A.; Mambo, M. Feed Intake, Growth Performance and Nutrient Digestibility of Broiler Chicks Fed Diets Containing Varying Levels of Sorghum Dried Brewers’ Grains. Int. J. Poult. Sci.; 2007; 6, pp. 592-598. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.592.598]
230. Ominski, K.; McAllister, T.; Stanford, K.; Mengistu, G.; Kebebe, E.G.; Omonijo, F.; Cordeiro, M.; Legesse, G.; Wittenberg, K. Utilization of by-Products and Food Waste in Livestock Production Systems: A Canadian Perspective. Anim. Front.; 2021; 11, pp. 55-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/af/vfab004]
231. Bernard, J.K. Considerations for Using by-Product Feeds. University of Georgia EXTENSION. Available online: https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B862#Economics (accessed on 20 October 2022).
232. Lyu, F.; Luiz, S.F.; Azeredo, D.R.; Cruz, A.G.; Ajlouni, S.R.; Chaminda, S. Apple Pomace as a Functional and Healthy Ingredient in Food Products: A Review. Processes; 2020; 8, 319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr8030319]
233. Malisch, R. Increase of the Pcdd/F-Contamination of Milk, Butter and Meat Samples by Use of Contaminated Citrus Pulp. Chemosphere; 2000; 40, pp. 1041-1053. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00352-5]
234. Li, Y.; Jiao, B.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, C.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, W. Effect of Commercial Processing on Pesticide Residues in Orange Products. Eur. Food Res. Technol.; 2012; 234, pp. 449-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-011-1651-1]
235. Veldman, A.; Borggreve, G.J.; Mulders, E.J.; Van De Lagemaat, D. Occurrence of the Mycotoxins Ochratoxin a, Zearalenone and Deoxynivalenol in Feed Components. Food Addit. Contam.; 1992; 9, pp. 647-655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02652039209374120]
236. Smeu, I.; Dobre, A.A.; Cucu, E.M.; Mustățea, G.; Belc, N.; Ungureanu, E.L. Byproducts from the Vegetable Oil Industry: The Challenges of Safety and Sustainability. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042039]
237. Nawaz, S.; Scudamore, K.A.; Rainbird, S.C. Mycotoxins in Ingredients of Animal Feeding Stuffs: I. Determination of Alternaria Mycotoxins in Oilseed Rape Meal and Sunflower Seed Meal. Food Addit. Contam.; 1997; 14, pp. 249-262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02652039709374522] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9135722]
238. Mortensen, A.; Granby, K.; Eriksen, F.D.; Cederberg, T.L.; Friis-Wandall, S.; Simonsen, Y.; Broesbøl-Jensen, B.; Bonnichsen, R. Levels and Risk Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in Byproducts for Animal Feed in Denmark. J. Environ. Sci. Health B; 2014; 49, pp. 797-810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2014.938546]
239. Zachariasova, M.; Dzuman, Z.; Veprikova, Z.; Hajkova, K.; Jiru, M.; Vaclavikova, M.; Zachariasova, A.; Pospichalova, M.; Florian, M.; Hajslova, J. Occurrence of Multiple Mycotoxins in European Feedingstuffs, Assessment of Dietary Intake by Farm Animals. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.; 2014; 193, pp. 124-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.02.007]
240. Tolosa, J.; Rodríguez-Carrasco, Y.; Ruiz, M.J.; Vila-Donat, P. Multi-Mycotoxin Occurrence in Feed, Metabolism and Carry-over to Animal-Derived Food Products: A Review. Food Chem. Toxicol.; 2021; 158, 112661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2021.112661] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34762978]
241. Lavelli, V. Circular Food Supply Chains—Impact on Value Addition and Safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2021; 114, pp. 323-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.008]
242. Mastanjević, K.; Lukinac, J.; Jukić, M.; Šarkanj, B.; Krstanović, V.; Mastanjević, K. Multi-(Myco)Toxins in Malting and Brewing by-Products. Toxins; 2019; 11, 30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxins11010030]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Agro-industrial by-products (AIBPs) that are not intended for human consumption can be used as alternatives to conventional feedstuffs in animal nutrition to produce animal products without competing for land or triggering the food-feed competition, thus leading to environmental, social, and economic sustainability. These by-products are also known to contain several bioactive compounds and have a potential to become nutraceuticals that can promote the health and well-being of poultry. The potentials of some AIBPs (e.g., fruit juice industry leftovers, oilseed industrial by-products, distillers’ grain by-products, vinification by-products, olive oil industry by-products, pomegranate by-products, tomato processing by-products) and their derivative products as functional feeds for poultry, but also potential limitations of utilizing AIBPs in poultry nutrition are elaborated in the present review. The possible mechanisms through which AIBPs may improve the health status and productivity of poultry are also discussed. We suggest that nutrient variability across countries should be stabilized and potential hazards such as mycotoxins and pesticides should be eliminated, and the potential hazards present in AIBPs (e.g., mycotoxins) should be better controlled through appropriate legislation and proper application of control measures. Modern processing methods, new types/classifications, and proper developmental strategies foster the utilization of AIBPs in animal nutrition. This review focuses on the AIBPs as feeds, not only for their nutritional value but also for their contribution to sustainable practices.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Giamouri, Elisavet 1 ; Pappas, Athanasios C 1
; Zoidis, Evangelos 1
; Goliomytis, Michael 2
; Simitzis, Panagiotis 2
1 Laboratory of Nutritional Physiology and Feeding, Faculty of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece
2 Laboratory of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Department of Animal Production, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece