Printer Friendly

Effect of fermentable liquid diet based on tomato silage on the performance of growing finishing pigs/Efecto de la alimentacion de cerdos en crecimiento y finalizacion con dietas liquidas fermentables a base de ensilaje de tomate/Efeito da alimentacao de porcos em crescimento e finalizacao com dietas liquidas fermentaveis a base de ensilagem de tomate.


The traditional swine feeding is based on soybean meal, and corn or sorghum grains, which have had price increases becoming expensive in recent times. The average price for cereals during 2000 to 2005 was USD204/ton; however, for 2006 to 2010 the price increased up to USD417/ ton (FAOSTAT, 2013). Therefore, the pork industry is including now agro industrial byproducts as a strategy to maintain its profitability (Aguilera-Soto et al., 2009). Some byproducts have a high level of humidity and are therefore frequently dried before being stored or transported; nevertheless, due to environmental concerns and the additional expenses from fuel cost for drying, the use of wet byproducts is becoming popular among farmers. Moist feed are usually perishable due to aerobic decay, which produces nutrient loss and contamination with microorganism and their toxins. Thus, fermentation is an option for storage of wet byproducts.

Fermentable liquid diets (FLD) are used as an option to include wet byproducts on swine diets (Jensen and Mikkelsen, 1998). The FLD enhances swine health by dropping stomach pH, increasing lactic acid concentration and decreasing populations of pathogens such as E. Coli and Salmonella spp. (Mikkelsen and Jensen, 2000; Van Winsen et al., 2001). It also has the potential to utilize co-products from the food industry (Geary et al., 1999; Scholten et al., 2002). The weight gain, feed intake and feed efficiency of pigs fed FLD are variable in some cases, but most of the time these are similar to obtained by pigs fed dry diets (Lawlor et al., 2002).

Tomato originated in South America, but it is considered to have been domesticated in Mexico (Pickersgill, 2007). It is one of the main vegetable crps cultivated in the world, with a global production of 159 x [10.sup.6] ton in 2011, 44% more than was produced in 2000 (FAOSTAT, 2013). Tomatoes are consumed in fresh form, and a minor proportion is used in processed products such as juice, paste, sauce, ketchup and others (Peralta and Spooner, 2007). However, more than 10% of the total production does not meet consumer requirements, resulting in post-harvest waste (Geisman, 1981). The percentage of waste could be greater in regions where a tomato processing industry is not present, when tomato is produced in open field, or when greenhouse tomatoes are exported and more products is discarded (Riggi and Avola, 2010). All of these situations occur in the central region of Mexico and therefore high amounts of tomato are available and could be used as animal feed. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate growth performance and carcass characteristic of pigs consuming a FLD with 30% of tomato silage on dry basis.

Materials and Methods

Tomato collection sites

Discarded tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. Saladette) were collected from the selection line in open field production at three sites located in Zacatecas, Mexico: Guadalupe (22[degrees]50'4"N, 102[degrees]24'4"W), Panuco (22[degrees]56'0"N, 102[degrees]27'18"W), and Villa de Cos (23[degrees]5'34"N, 102[degrees]15'30"W). Altitude varies from 1750 to 2400masl, average temperature 14-19[degrees]C, and annual rainfall 375-430mm (INIFAP, 2013).

The collected tomatoes were transported to the experimental site, stored under roofed facilities with sloped concrete floor, and covered with plastic for 5 days. Tomatoes were then ensiled in 200 liter metallic containers and were covered with a plastic film. Water was added over the top of the plastic cover to ensure the absence of oxygen. The containers were checked every 14 days, and additional water was added over the plastic cover when necessary. The silage period lasted for at least 140 days.

Thirty-two Duroc x York castrated male pigs (27 [+ or -] 3 days of age and 8.4 [+ or -] 1.3kg weight) were randomly allotted in groups of four pigs per pen, and pens were assigned to one of two experimental groups (16 pigs and 4 pens per treatment). The basal diets considered three feeding periods (post-weaning, growing and finishing) with 22.5, 20.5 and 18% of crude protein (CP), respectively, as recommended by Fabian et al. (2004). Basal diets consisted of a mix of corn grain and soybean meal (Table I) to which 300g x [kg.sup.-1] of TS or WBG (as control) on DM basis were added. To prepare the experimental diets as FLD, water was added to the ration treatments in order to get 50% humidity. Mixed diets were then stored in metallic containers of 200 liters during an average of 8 days to allow fermentation. Diet samples were dried and ground in a Wiley mill with 1mm mesh (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) and stored in plastic bags for further chemical analyses. Dry matter (DM), ash, crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF) ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined using the AOAC (2006) methods.

Pigs were adapted to experimental diets for a period of 10 days and thereafter remained in the feeding trial until they reached an average weight of 95kg per pen. Diets were offered twice a day (08:00 and 16:00), considering a 5% daily increase. Pig intake was determined by registering weight differences between offered and refused feed. Pigs were individually weighed every 20 days.

At the end of the feeding trial, pigs were deprived of food overnight, and in the next morning were transported to the abattoir. Pigs were weighed immediately before harvest, and hot carcass weight was registered immediately. The non-carcass components: head, skin, feet, liver, heart, lungs, pluck, empty gut, small intestine, large intestine and cecum were individually recorded. In addition, lungs, trachea and heart were weighted as one piece, and designated as pluck.

Carcasses were hanged and refrigerated at 3-5[degrees]C. Carcass pH was measured at 45min post-mortem from the semi-membranosus muscle using a portable pH meter. Dorsal fat thickness and chop eye were measured with a ruler at the middle line of the dorsal area at the 10th and 12th thoracic vertebrae. The prediction of the primary cuts was estimated according to the Savelland and Behrends (2005) equation, which uses hot carcass weight, dorsal fat thickness and chop eye in the calculation.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by using one-way analyses of variance applying the GLM procedure of SAS (2000). Growth performance variables were adjusted for initial weight by covariance analyses. Means were separated by means of the Tukey multiple range test at P<0.05.

Results and Discussion

Weight of pigs differ (P<0.05) among treatments at all feeding periods (Table II). Pigs fed TS diet were heavier (P<0.05) than pigs consuming the control diet (11, 16 and 10% at post-weaning, growing and finishing phases, respectively). Pigs fed TS diet were 9.8% heavier (P<0.02) at 130 days than pigs fed control diet. The average daily gain (ADG) in weight was greater (p<0.01) for pigs fed TS than for pigs fed WBG diet, at the post-weaning (423 vs 360 g/ day) and growing (763 vs 633 g/day) feeding phases; however, it was similar (P=0.46) at the finishing phase, with gains of 810 and 790 g/day for pigs fed TS and WBG diets, respectively.

In agreement with the present results, Caluya et al. (2000) added 6% (on DM basis) of tomato pomace to fattening commercial diets and reported an increase on the ADG and final weight of pigs on the tomato feeding diet. In turn, Cilev et al. (2007) substituted corn grain with vegetable and fruit byproducts in growing pig diets, and reported that during the initial feeding period (50 days), pigs on the tomato diet were lighter than controls; however, after 100 days of fattening the final weight was similar (P>0.05) when fed 0% (96.2kg), 2% (98kg), or 3% (99.5kg) of tomato pomace in the diet.

On the other hand, Imamidou et al. (1999) added 4 or 8% of dry tomato pulp to swine diets and reported lower (P>0.05) nutrient digestibility (DM, OM, CP and CF) on animals fed 8% of tomato pulp. Fondevila et al. (1994) added 20% of tomato pomace to diets for growing lambs and observed similar ADG (P>0.05) in comparison to soybean meal diets (311 and 333 g/day, respectively). In addition, Abdullahzadeh (2012) reported similar (P>0.05) final weights for goat kids fed diets with 0, 10, 20 and 30% dried tomato pomace. Similarly, Barbieri-Sanz (1993) added 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40% of wet tomato pomace to diets for feedlot steers, and reported similar (P>0.05) performance data among the experimental treatments. However, Yuangklang et al. (2010) reported a reduction in the final weight of steers as dried tomato pomace was increased (3.2, 8.0, or 11.2%) in diets.

Pigs on TS diet had a greater (P<0.01) dry matter intake (DMI) than pigs on a WBG diet at all feeding periods (Table II). The difference between treatments was 5% in the post-weaning phase, and 9% in the subsequent feeding phases. Cilev et al. (2007) reported reduction of DMI of pigs when tomato pomace was included (at 2 or 3%) in the diets. Yitbarek (2013) observed similar DMI (P>0.05) among growing chicks fed diets with 0, 5, 10, 15 or 20% of dried tomato pomace. However, Lira et al. (2010), who included 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20% of tomato waste on broiler diets, reported that DMI was reduced as tomato increased in the diet in the initial 1 to 7 days of feeding, but DMI increased at days 36 to 42 of fattening. Moreover, feed efficiency followed the same pattern as ADG. In the present study, pigs on TS diet required fewer days (P<0.01) to reach target weight (142 vs 129 days for pigs fed WBG and TS diets, respectively; Table II).

In this study, carcass and non-carcass components were similar (P>0.05) between treatment diets (Table III). Also, Abo-Omar (2003) reported similar carcass and visceral organ weight when including 0, 15, 30 or 45% of by-product silage to diets of Awassi lambs. Abdullahzadeh (2012) reported similar (P>0.05) hot carcass weight and dressing percentages in goat kids fed diets containing dried tomato pomace; however, this author reported greater CP and ether extract contents in the carcasses of goat kids fed dried tomato pomace at levels of 20 and 30% compared with levels of 0 and 10%. Lira et al. (2010) added 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20% of tomato pomace to diets of broilers and reported similar (P>0.05) wings, breast and abdominal weight; however, they mentioned that the relative weights of liver and heart were greater in broilers fed tomato diets.


Tomato silage can be added at 30% DM basis to fermentable liquid diets of growing finishing pigs, as this diet improved growth performance without affect carcass characteristics.

Received: 07/05/2013. Modified: 06/09/2014. Accepted: 06/10/2014.


Abdullahzadeh F (2012) The effect of tomato pomace on carcass traits, blood metabolites and fleece characteristic of growing Markhoz goat. J. Am. Sci. 8: 848-852.

Abo-Omar J (2003) Growth performance and visceral organ mass of Awassi lambs fed different levels of some agricultural by-products silage. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 18: 1-10.

Aguilera-Soto JI, Ramirez RG, Arichiga, CF, Gutierrez-Banuelos H, Mendez-Llorente F, Lopez-Carlos MA, Rodriguez-Tenorio D (2009) Effect of fermentable liquid diets based on wet brewers grains on performance of growing pigs. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 36: 271-274.

AOAC (2006) Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC, USA.

Barbieri-Sanz M (1993) Productive Behavior of Hereford Steers Fed with Fattening Diets Including Increasing Levels of Tomato Pomace. Thesis. University of Santiago. Chile. 71 pp.

Caluya RR, Sair RR, Balneg BB (2000) Fresh tomato pomace (ftp) as good feed for growing and fattening pigs. Proc. PCARRD Highlights '99. 143 pp.

Cilev G, Sinovec Z, Palasevski B, Zivkovic B, Gjorgjievski S, Prodanov R (2007) Examining the efficiency of the semi substitution of the maize with a by-products obtained by manufacturing vegetables and fruits in mixtures for growing and fattening pigs. Biotechnol. Anim. Husband. 23: 413-426.

Fabian J, Chiba LI, Frobish LT, McElhenney WH, Kuhlers DL, Nadarajah K (2004) Compensatory growth and nitrogen balance in grower-finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 2579-2587.

FAOSTAT (2013) Statistics of Crop Production. Food and Agricultural Organization. Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao. org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor (Cons. 05/20/2013).

Fondevila M, Guada JA, Gasa J, Castrillo C(1994) Tomato pomace as a protein supplement for growing lambs. Small Rum. Res. 13: 117-126.

Geary TM, Brooks PH, Beal JD, Campbell A (1999) Effect on weaned pig performance and diet microbiology of feeding a liquid diet acidified to pH4 with either lactic acid or through fermentation with Pediococcus acidilactici. J. Sci. Food Agr. 79: 633-640.

Geisman JR (1981) Protein from Tomato Seeds. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Columbus, OH, USA. 66 pp.

Imamidou A, Balios I, Nikolakakis I, Dotas D (1999) Digestibility of rations for growing-finishing pigs containing different levels of dry tomato pulp with and without enzymes. Epitheor. Zootech. Epist. 26: 55-66.

INIFAP (2013) Red de Monitoreo Agroclimatico del Estado de Zacatecas. www.zacatecas. php?id_est=18851 (Cons.20/05/2013).

Jensen BB, Mikkelsen LL (1998) Feeding liquid diets to pigs. In Garnsworthy PC, Wiseman J. (Eds.) Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK. pp 107-126.

Lawlor PG, Lynch PB, Gardiner GE, Caffrey PJ, O'Doherty JV (2002) Effect of liquid feeding weaned pigs on growth performance to harvest. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 1725-1735.

Lira RC, Rabello CBV, Ludke MDC, Ferreira PV, Lana GRQ, Lana SRV (2010) Productive performance of broiler chickens fed tomato waste. Rev. Bras. Zootecn.39: 1074-1081.

Mikkelsen LL, Jensen BB (2000) Effect of fermented liquid feed on the activity and composition of the microbiota in the gut of pigs. Pig News Info. 21: 59-66.

Peralta IE, Spooner DM (2007) History, origin and early cultivation of tomato (Solanaceae). Genet. Improv. Solanac. Crops 2: 1-27.

Pickersgill B (2007) Domestication of plants in the Americas: insights from Mendelian and molecular genetics. Ann. Bot. 100: 925-940.

Riggi E, Avola G (2010) Quantification of the waste stream from fresh tomato packinghouses and its fluctuations: Implications for waste management planning. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54: 436-441.

SAS (2000) SAS/STAT User's Guide (8.1 ed.). SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA.

Savell JW, Behrends JM (2005) Pork carcass composition and quality. In Pond WG, Bell A (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Animal Science. CRC. New York, USA. pp. 333-339.

Scholten R, Van der Peet-Schwering CMC, Den Hartog LA, Schrama JW, Verstegen MWA (2002) Fermented wheat in liquid diets: effects on gastrointestinal characteristics in weanling piglets. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1179-1186.

Van Winsen RL, Urlings BAP, Lipman LJA, Snijders JMA, Keuzenkamp D, Verhejden JHM, Van Knapen F (2001) Effect of fermented feed on the microbial population of the gastrointestinal tracts of pigs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 3071-3076.

Yitbarek MB (2013) The effect of feeding different levels of dried tomato pomace on the performance of Rhode Island Red (RIR) grower chicks. Int. J. Livest. Prod. 4: 35-41.

Yuangklang C, Vasupen K, Wongsuthavas S, Panyakaew P, Alhaidary A, Mohamed HE, Beynen AC (2010) Growth performance in beef cattle fed rations containing dried tomato pomace. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 9: 2261-2264.

Jairo Ivan Aguilera-Soto. Doctor of Sciences, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon (UANL), Mexico. Professor, Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas (UAZ), Mexico.

Fabiola Mendez-Llorente. Master of Sciences, UAZ, Mexico. Professor, UAZ, Mexico.

Marco AntonioLopez-Carlos. Doctor of Sciences, UANL, Mexico. Professor, UAZ. Address: Pan-American Highway, section Zacatecas-Fresnillo, Km 31.5, El Cordovel, Gral. Enrique Estrada, Zacatecas, 98500, Mexico. e-mail: lopcarmarco@

Roque Gonzalo Ramirez-Lozano. Ph.D., New Mexico State University, USA. Professor, UANL, Mexico.

Octavio Carrillo-Muro. Master of Sciences, Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, Mexico. Professor, UAZ, Mexico.

Luis Manuel Escareno-Sanchez. Dr. Nat. Tech., Universitat fur Bodenkultur Wien, Austria. Professor, UAZ, Mexico.

Carlos Aurelio Medina-Flores. Doctor of Sciences, UAZ, Mexico. Professor, UAZ, Mexico.


                                     Post weaning      Growing

                                     TS       WBG      TS       WBG

Wet brewers grain, g x [kg.sup.-1]     0.0    300        0.0    300
Tomato silage, g x [kg.sup.-1]       300        0.0    300        0.0
Corn grain, g x [kg.sup.-1]          400      400      460      460
Soybean meal, g x [kg.sup.-1]        250      250      200      200
Fish meal, g x [kg.sup.-1]            25.0     25.0     15.0     15.0
Premix, g x [kg.sup.-1]               20.0     20.0     20.0     20.0
Calcium carbonate g x [kg.sup.-1]      5.0      5.0      5.0      5.0

Chemical composition
  Dry matter, %                       52.7     51.0     49.9     50.4
  Ash, %                               4.1      4.4      4.4      4.6
  Crude protein, %                    23.5     23.3     20.5     20.4
  Neutral detergent fiber, %          18.1     19.5     16.3     18.6
  Acid detergent fiber, %              7.2      8.4      7.2      8.2
  Crude fiber, %                       5.8      6.2      5.6      6.1
  Ether extract, %                     2.4      2.4      2.6      2.6



                                     TS       WBG

Wet brewers grain, g x [kg.sup.-1]     0.0    300
Tomato silage, g x [kg.sup.-1]       300        0.0
Corn grain, g x [kg.sup.-1]          480      480
Soybean meal, g x [kg.sup.-1]        150      150
Fish meal, g x [kg.sup.-1]            25.0     25.0
Premix, g x [kg.sup.-1]               20.0     20.0
Calcium carbonate g x [kg.sup.-1]      5.0      5.0

Chemical composition
  Dry matter, %                       50.2     51.8
  Ash, %                               4.0      4.3
  Crude protein, %                    18.4     18.0
  Neutral detergent fiber, %          17.1     18.5
  Acid detergent fiber, %              7.4      7.9
  Crude fiber, %                       5.9      6.0
  Ether extract, %                     2.9      2.8

WBG: diet served as control.


                            TS      WBG      SEM       P<
Weight, kg
  0-40 days                  8.3      8.4    0.15    0.9
  40-80 days                25.2     22.8    0.5     0.01
  80-130 days               55.7     48.1    0.6     0.01
  0-130 days                96.2     87.6    0.5     0.02
  Total gain                87.9     79.2    0.15    0.01
Average daily gain, g/d
  0-40 days                423      360     14       0.01
  40-80 days               763      632     16       0.01
  80-130 days              810      790     14       0.46
  0-130 days               676      609     11       0.01
Dry matter intake, g/d
  0-40 days               1125     1180     28       0.01
  40-80 days              1713     1860     27       0.01
  80-130 days             2315     2520     28       0.01
  0-130 days              1864     1905     24       0.01
  Feed efficiency            2.8      3.1    0.1     0.01
  Days to 95kg             136      150      1.5     0.01

Feed efficiency: dry matter intake/average daily gain, WBG: diet
served as control, SEM: standard error of the mean.


Concept                       TS      WBG      SEM     P<

Days to harvest              130      142       1.9   0.01
Weight at harvest, kg         96       95       2.1   0.6
Hot carcass weight, kg
  With head                   74       73       0.6   0.4
  Without head                69       68       0.4   0.4
Carcass yield, %
  With head                   77       76       0.6   0.6
  Without head                72       72       0.6   0.6
pH post-mortem
  45min                        6.3      6.4     0.2   0.8
  24h                          6        6       0.2   0.7
Back fat thickness, mm
  10th rib                    25       25        2    0.6
  12th rib                    22       23        2    0.4
  Ribeye area, [mm.sup.2]     97       96       22    0.6
  Primary cuts, kg            45       44        1    0.6
  Head, g                   4830     4780      118    0.8
  Liver, g                  1580     1530       56    0.6
  Heart, g                   318      322       18    0.7
  Lungs, g                   880      865       38    0.6
  Pluck, g                  1520     1490       54    0.7
  Empty gut, g               550      570       33    0.5
  Small intestine, g        1280     1310       38    0.8
  Large intestine, g         825      860       26    0.6
  Cecum, g                   162      172       22    0.7

WBG: diet served as control, SEM: standard error of the mean.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Interciencia Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Aguilera-Soto, Jairo Ivan; Mendez-Llorente, Fabiola; Lopez-Carlos, Marco Antonio; Ramirez, Roque Gon
Date:Jun 1, 2014
Previous Article:Pre-emergence weed chemical control in husk tomato/Control quimico preemergente de la maleza en Tomate de cascara/Controle quimico pre-emergente de...
Next Article:Preservation of fresh tomato waste by silage/ Conservacion de desperdicio de tomate mediante ensilaje/ Conservacao de residuos de tomate mediante...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters