Printer Friendly

Ensiling fruit and vegetable residues in summer season as ruminants feed.

Introduction

Residue from sorting and packing of fruits and vegetables appears to be important annually environmental pollutants which cause a considerable increase in the expense of waste management. Moreover, the high price of raw material such as soybean meal and cottonseed meal in ruminants feed leads to an increasing augmentation in the unit cost of product. FAO in 1991 reported that the total waste produced from tomatoes in the world was approximately 3.70 million ton/year [6]. Therefore, properly dealing with fruit and vegetable residues can decrease the expense of waste management and also reduce the potential for environmental pollution. Due to these reasons, nowadays, animal scientists have become apt to the utilization of fruit and vegetable residues (FVR) in ruminants diet. Numerous researches dealing with the determination the value of this disposal as animal feed have been reported [3,1,16,10]. It is reported that tomato seeds protein was approximately 13% more lysine than soy protein, which would be efficient to utilize them in fortifying low lysine foods [3]. FVR could be used in fresh, dried or ensiled forms in animal feeding [5]. Ensiling is one of the most suitable methods for preservation of food for a long period. Fazaeli and Mahdavi [7] studied the effect of rice straw, molasses, ground barley and salt for berseem clover silage. Hence, the moisture contents of FVR are high; the silage making is not simple. Silage additive can be used in order to adjust moisture, improve nutrient composition, value of silage, palatability, decreasing storage losses by developing rapid fermentation, declining fermentation losses by limiting extent of fermentation [11]. Cereal grains, rice bran, and molasses have been utilized as a silage additive [18,23,10]. 65 kg of mixed barley grain with sugar beet pulp per ton of grass silage were used to augment dry matter from 23% to 33% [2]. Karkoodi and Ghaffari, [10 reported that the silage containing 35% of DM and 4% of molasses as a superior silage of FVR in autumn season. Molasses, which is made up of 60% soluble carbohydrate has been used as a silage additive for many years and results in a rise in both dry matter and lactic acid content. Molasses can also lead to decrease pH and buffering capacity [11,7].

In the central terminal of Tehran, the capital of Iran, fruit and vegetable residues are produced close to 200-250 tons/ day [17] which are not being used. It is estimated to be between 20% and 40% of the environmental pollutants and daily disposal expenditure.

Therefore, we designed this research to study the silage characteristics and nutritive value of FVR so as to introduce FVR as ruminants feed.

Material and Method

This study was performed in different summer months and samples were obtained from central market that placed in Alborze province. To make the silage, initially, chopped (2-3 cm) FVR were added to wheat straw of 93% DM to fulfill the proper dry matter. Each of 12 treatments replicated 3 times. Then, FVR was ensiled according to the formulas which are illustrated in (Table 1). Ensiling period lasted 2 months, after that the bags were opened and the representative samples were drawn to assess the quality of silage by visual appraisal that included smell, color, texture and the amount of mould [14]. Apparent evaluation of silage was performed by 4 experts.

250 g of each FVR were weighed accurately and immediately subdivided into 3 portion to determine DM content, pH and chemical composition. The DM content was determined by drying at 65[degrees]C for 48h in oven. The pH of samples was determined by the following method. Fifty g of sample was taken from each bag (replicate) and 50 ml distilled water added to samples and mixed completely with electrical mixture and the pH of extracted liquid was determined by Metrohm 633 pH meter. By method of Micro-kjeldahl [19], total nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen were determined. Twenty g of each sample was weighed accurately in beaker and 200 ml of distilled water was added to each sample. It was stirred for 2 minutes. Then it was filtered through a dried filter and after that 20 ml of filtrate, was taken to use in steam distillation apparatus. After distillation according to equation of Stuchbury and Scaife [20], the total amount of total volatile fatty acids was determined by using 10 ml of filtrate that was obtained from previous part and transferred in centrifuge tube. The samples were centrifuged at 3000 for 10 minutes after that the filtrate transferred to condenser. The titer of each sample was calculated by equation of Stuchbury and Scaife, [20].

In vitro dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM) and digestible organic matter in dry matter (DOM) coefficients of digestibility were assessed using the 2-stage digestion procedure described by Tilley and Terry, [21].

The experimental design was a factorial completely randomized. All the data were analysed to variance (ANOVA) using SAS statistical software (version 9.0) and statistical module ([Y.sub.ij] = [mu] + [T.sub.i] + [e.sub.ij]) and differences (P<0.05) among treatments were tested using Duncan's multiple test. In all cases, (p< 0.05) was considered as significant.

Results and Biscussion

Silage characteristics. The results of apparent evaluation of silages are presented in table (2). There were significant differences (P< 0.05) among these treatments in different summer months. Scoring system was performed by visual appraisal [14] and the scores ranged from 3.76 to 16.96 and the mean apparent evaluation was 9.61. Treatments 3, 7 and 11 were placed in good category and treatments 6 and 10 were acceptable and treatments 2, 5, 8, 9, 1, 4 and 12 were categorized in bad and unacceptable category.

Experimental evaluation. Significant differences (P< 0.05) in pH among treatments were found table (2). The mean pH was 5.18 which ranged from 4.81to 5.47 and the lowest pH was in treatment 9 and the highest pH was shown in treatment 3. According to Frank and Redman, [8] the connection between pH of silage and dry matter can play prominent role in presentation of the degree of success achieved in the ensilage process. The silage with the pH of 4.4 to 5.9 and below is considered to be a good and acceptable quality when its dry matter is 30 to 40% and above [12,14]. Thus, the treatments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 with the pH of 5.41, 4.94, 5.25, 5.25, 4.81, 4.86, 4.89, and 5.33 respectively were put in good and acceptable silage category. In addition, the treatments 1, 2, 3 and 4 with the pH of 5.44, 5.06, 5.47 and 5.38 were noted as unacceptable silage. In the current research, treatments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were added to sugar beet molasses and resulted in an improvement of fermentation and the decrease in pH. These results are attributed to a rise in the soluble carbohydrate and dry matter content. These results were supported by Mykhchy, 1983; McDonald et al, 1991; Fazaeli and Mahdavi, 1996. In other treatments, the pH were not acceptable that is attributed to Lower soluble carbohydrate and dry matter in silage that lead to activate clostridium and high relatively moldy. These results were in agreement with Mykhchy, [12] McDonald et al., [11] Saedi and Shamma, [14]. The result of this experiment confirmed the hypothesis about the effect of molasses on decreasing in pH content and also revealed that by increasing 5% of dry matter and utilizing molasses the pH in treatments 2, 6, 12 reduced. In other study, there was a significant difference (p <0.05) in the mean pH in spring and winter as 4.52% and 6.02%, respectively [22].

Dry matter criterion. There were significant differences (P< 0.05) in dry matter which ranged from 25.5 to 42.93% (table 2). The lowest dry matter was belonged to treatment 1(25.2%) and greatest dry matter content were shown on treatment 12 (42.9%). In this study, by increasing the ratio of wheat straw and molasses to residue, in turn, dry matter content increased. The lowest ratio of straw was in treatments 1,5 and 9 which were treated with 0%, 2% and 4% molasses respectively. As a result of increasing molasses, the dry matter significantly increased that resulted in an improvement the silage condition. This result was consistent with the result obtained by Mykhchy, 1983; McDonald, 1991 who observed the influence of adding molasses over dry matter of silage. However, the ideal dry matter in silage is around 30-35%, while the dry matter generally ranges from 15 to 60% [4].

PH and dry matter criteria. In terms of relationship between pH and dry matter [14], treatment 11 (table 2) with 38.5% dry matter and pH of 4.98 was introduced as the best treatment.

Total nitrogen criteria. Significant differences were found (p< 0.05) in total nitrogen in our study (table 3) which were between 0.96% (treatment 4) and 1.23% (treatment 9). The treatments 4, 8, and 12 having the lowest total nitrogen (table 3) which is presumably due to add straw (low crude protein) to this FVR to obtain acceptable dry matter.

Ammonia nitrogen criterion. In terms of ammonia nitrogen which ranged from 0.07 to 0.19%, treatment 1 with 25.5% dry matter had the highest ammonia-n and the lowest ammonia-n was found in treatment 11 with 35% dry matter and significant changes (P<0.05) were noted (table 3) between these two treatments. Ammonia-n level of total nitrogen can reveal some aspects concerning the quality of fermentation and the potential of consumption of silage and it has been considered a general criterion of assessment its quality. When ammonia-n level of total nitrogen is lower than 5 g of 100 g it would be deemed to be the satisfaction of secondary fermentation [4], while the rate of ammonia-n level in silage generally is between 5 and 15 g of each 1oo g. The high ammonia-n level cause to decrease energy metabolism [4]. So, the weak fermentation belonged to treatments 1 and 5, the treatments 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 had moderate fermentation and the treatments 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 had good fermentation. There was not excellent fermentation in FVR silage that is presumably because of low dry matter. On the contrary, the treatments with high dry matter would be categorized in good silage. In fact, ammonia-n comes from degradation of protein and convert into ammonia and amines [14]. Therefore, the treatment 12 with the lowest ratio of FVR to straw wheat and molasses had the lowest percentage point of CP. Although the lowest ammonia-n was found in treatment 11 and there was not significant between two treatments. The result of our study was in agreement with Fazaeli and Mahdavi, [7] who studied the effect of rice straw, molasses, ground barley and salt on silage quality of berseem clover.

In the present study, the lowest of this criterion was found in treatment 11 (6.03%) and the greatest of one belonged treatment 1 (17.5%).

As is illustrated by the table (3), the highest and the lowest of total volatile fatty acids were observed in treatments 4 (107 mmol) and 11 (52 mmol) respectively. Also, there was significant difference (P<0.05) between two treatments. The determination of lactic acids and volatile fatty acids score in forage silage have a prominent role in controlling moisture level and the influence of them on feed intake [8,13]. The production levels of lactic acids and TVFA are a reflection of unsuitable fermentation or secondary fermentation of lactic acids to butyric acid and degradation of amino acids to ammonia and acetic acid. In the ideal case, the total number of volatile fatty acids in the silage should be less than 0.2 of total silage fermentation acids [4].

In vitro digestibility. The results of in vitro digestibility are presented in table (4). According to these results, mean DM digestibility was 56.38% which ranged from 49.26% to 62.08 and treatment 3 (49.26%) had the lowest DM digestibility and the maximum DM digestibility was in treatment 9 (62.08 %). Mean DM digestibility in our results was higher than the results obtained by Teymoornejad [22] in winter and spring (43.5%, 49.61%, respectively).

OM digestibility in our study ranged from 50.55 to 65.92% and the greatest of one belonged to treatment 9 and the lowest OM digestibility was shown on treatment 3 which there was a significant difference (P <0.05) between these two treatments. In the current study, OM digestibility was higher than the result reported by [22] in winter (35.52%) and spring (40.04%). This discrepancy between two results was attributed to the high ash content in winter and spring that lead to decrease OM digestibility in summer.

Conclusions:

Based on these results, we concluded that the treatment 11 containing DM (38.52%), OM (77.13 %), ash (20.87%),total N (1.23%), ammonia N (0.07 %), ammonia N ratio to total N (6.03%), in vitro DM digestibility (60.44%), in vitro OM digestibility (62.57%), in vitro DOM digestibility (49.48%), pH(4.98), score (16.58 out of 20) VFA (52 mmol) was a superior treatment.

References

[1.] Ahmed, S.S., K.M. El-Gendy and H. Ibrahim, 1994. Growth performance, digestibility, carcass traits and some physiological aspects of growing rabbits fed tomato pomace as a substitution for alfalfa meal. Egypt Journal of Rabbit Science, 4(1): 1-18. (3).

[2.] Brzoska, F., M. Pieszka and W. Zyzak, 2000. Effect of effluent absorbent and ensiling agents on grass silage intake, cow performance and milk composition. Rocz. Nauk. Zootech., 27: 179-192. (Article in Polish, with an abstract in English).

[3.] Bordowski, I. and J.R. Geisman, 1998. Protein content and amino acid composition of protein of seeds from tomatoes at various stages of ripeness. J Food Sci., 45: 228-235.

[4.] Chamberlain, A.T. and J.M. Wilkinson, 2000. Feeding the dairy cow. Published by Chalcomb Publication, Southampton, UK, 3th (rev. ed).

[5.] Church, D.C., 1991. Livestock feeds and feeding. 4th (rev. ed). Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[6.] FAO., 1991. Production year book, vol.44.food and agricultural Organization of the United Nation. Rome.

[7.] Fazaeli, H. and R. Mahdavi, 1996. Effect of rice straw, molasses, oatmeal and salt on silage quality of berseem clover. Journal of Pajoohesh and Sazandegi, 34:116-119. (Article in Persian, with an abstract in English).

[8.] Frank, R. and P. Redman, 1986. Forage conservation and feeding forming. LTD Press, p: 24-27.

[9.] Karkoodi, K., H. Fazaeli and S.S. Mirghaffari, 2012. Assessing the nutritive value of fruit and vegetable residues as ruminant feed. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 36(1).

[10.] Karkoodi, K and S.A. Ghaffari, 2012. Ensiling fruit and vegetable residues as ruminants feed. Research Opinions in Animal and Veterinary science. Sci., 2(6): 397-401.

[11.] McDonald, P., A.R. Henderson and S. Heron, 1991. The biochemistry of silage. Kingston, Kent: Chalcombe Publications., pp: 340.

[12.] Mykhchy, M.H., 1983. How plants produce silage for animal feed. Issue number one. Publishing Public Relations Department of Agriculture.

[13.] Reis, j., A. Paiva and P.D. Tiesenhausen, 2000. Chemical composition, voluntary intake, digestibility of the silage of passion fruit residues with elephant grass.

[14.] Saedi, H.M. and M. Shamma, 1992. Livestock and poultry food and their method of food preservation. Volume II. Tehran University Press.

[15.] SAS Institute, 2002. SAS User's Guide, Version 9.0 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.

[16.] Sayed, A.B.N. and A.M. Abdel-azeem, 2009. Evaluation of dried tomato pomace as feedstuff in the diets of growing rabbits. International Journal for Agro Veterinary and medical science, 3: 12-18.

[17.] Shamma, M. and A.R. Asefi, 1995. Utilization of fruit and vegetable residues in feedlot presidency of recycling organization of Tehran municipality. (Article in Farsi with an abstract in English).

[18.] Sibanda, S., R.M. Jingura and J.H. Topps, 1997. The effect of level of inclusion of the legume Desmodium uncinatum and the use of molasses or ground maize as additives on the chemical composition of grass- and maize-Lume silages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 68: 295-305.

[19.] Singh, C.A., A.B. Sarker and T.C. Roy, 1994. Chemical composition and digestibility of garbage fed to Hampshire pigs. Department of Animal Production and Management, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, India, Livestock Adviser, 195: 20-24.

[20.] Stuchbury, T. and J.R. Scaife, 1991. Practical Manual, Farm Animal Biochemistry, Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, Aberdeen University, U.K.

[21.] Tilley, Y.M.A. and R.A.A. Terry, 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grasslland Society, 18: 104-111.

[22.] Tymoornejad, N., 2000. Determination of nutritive value of fruits and vegetable wastes with in situ, in vivo and in vitro techniques in spring and winter seasons. MSc thesis of Islamic Azad University, Karaj branch. Iran. (Thesis in Farsi with an abstract in English).

[23.] Yokota, H., Y. Fujii and M. Ohshima, 1998. Nutritional quality of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) silage supplemented with molasses and rice bran by goats. Asian-Aust. Journal. Anim. Science. 11: 697-701.

(1) Karkoodi. K, (1) Ghaffari. S.A and (2) Moradi. P

(1) Department of Animal Science, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran.

(2) Department of Horticulture Science, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran.

Corresponding Author

Karkoodi. K, Department of Animal Science, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran. E-mail: Karkoodi@iau-saveh.ac.ir
Table 1: Experimental silages

Treatments Molasses% DM%

1 0 25
2 0 30
3 0 35
4 0 40
5 2 25
6 2 30
7 2 35
8 2 40
9 4 25
10 4 30
11 4 35
12 4 40

Table 2: The effects of treatments on the silage characteristics

Treatments pH DM%

1 5.44 [+ or -] 0.008 (aa) 25.5 [+ or -] 0.19 (g)
2 5.06 [+ or -] 0.15 (acd) 29.88 [+ or -] 0.36 (e)
3 5.47 [+ or -] 0.11 (a) 38.69 [+ or -] 0.53 (c)
4 5.38 [+ or -] 0.12 (ab) 40.53 [+ or -] 0.09 (b)
5 5.41 [+ or -] 0.01 (ab) 26.55 [+ or -] 0.05 (f)
6 4.94 [+ or -] 0.08 (d) 30.45 [+ or -] 0.42 (e)
7 5.25 [+ or -] 0.03 (abc) 38.03 [+ or -] 1.8 (c)
8 5.25 [+ or -] 0.02 (abc) 41.43 [+ or -] 0.19 (b)
9 4.81 [+ or -] 0.04 (d) 27.25 [+ or -] 0.57 (f)
10 4.86 [+ or -] 0.06 (d) 31.97 [+ or -] 0.14 (d)
11 4.98 [+ or -] 0.1 (d) 38.52 [+ or -] 0.19 (c)
12 5.33 [+ or -] 0.03 (ab) 42.93 [+ or -] 0.11 (a)
MSE 0.137 0.5405

Treatments Score Ash

1 3.76 [+ or -] 0.17 (g) 24.7 [+ or -] 0.47 (abc)
2 8.58 [+ or -] 1.15 (d) 25.97 [+ or -] 1.52 (ab)
3 16.96 [+ or -] 0.8 (a) 24.44 [+ or -] 4.39 (abc)
4 5.25 [+ or -] 1.55 (f) 16.14 [+ or -] 1.04 (e)
5 8.45 [+ or -] 1.61 (d) 29.44 [+ or -] 1.01 (a)
6 12.23 [+ or -] 0.13 (c) 20.05 [+ or -] 0.05 (cde)
7 13.3 [+ or -] 0.58 (b) 19.2 [+ or -] 0.11 (de)
8 6.4 [+ or -] 0.65 (f) 21.74 [+ or -] 2.19 (bcd)
9 7.64 [+ or -] 1.5 (e) 24.76 [+ or -] 0.9 (bc)
10 10.8 [+ or -] 0.32 (cd) 24.37 [+ or -] 1.56 (bc)
11 16.58 [+ or -] 0.33 (b) 20.87 [+ or -] 1.02 (cde)
12 5.46 [+ or -] 0.92 (f) 18.37 [+ or -] 1.52 (de)
MSE 1.691 2.976

Means with the different superscripts within a column are
significantly different (P<0.05)

Table 3: Effect of treatments on the ammonia nitrogen and VFA

Treatments N-NH3 TN

1 0. 19 [+ or -]0.003 (a) 1.13 [+ or -] 0.03 (b)
2 0.14 [+ or -] 0.006 (b) 0.98 [+ or -] 0.02 (d)
3 0.12 [+ or -] 0.001 (bc) 1.2 [+ or -] 0.02 (ab)
4 0.09 [+ or -] 0.005 (de) 0.96 [+ or -] 0.01 (d)
5 0.18 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 1.21 [+ or -] 0.06 (ab)
6 0.13 [+ or -] 0.01 (bc) 1.02 [+ or -] 0.04 (cd)
7 0.11 [+ or -] 0.03 (cd) 1.21 [+ or -] 0.01 (ab)
8 0.08 [+ or -] 0.002 (de) 0.99 [+ or -] 0.01 (cd)
9 0.12 [+ or -] 0.003 (bc) 1.23 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)
10 0.12 (bc) [+ or -] 0.007 1.06 [+ or -] 0.02 (c)
11 0.07 [+ or -] 0.01 (e) 1.23 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
12 0.09 [+ or -] 0.006 (de) 1.04 [+ or -] 0.01 (cd)
SEM 0.015 0.056

Treatments N-NH3/TN T.VFA

1 17.5 [+ or -] 0.62 (a) 92 [+ or -] 2.36 (bc)
2 14.53 [+ or -] 0.37 (bc) 87.16 [+ or -] 1.58 (cd)
3 11.52 [+ or -] 0.94 (dfe) 69.5 [+ or -] 6.72 (g)
4 9.65 [+ or -] 0.46 (fg) 107 [+ or -] 1.89 (a)
5 14.29 [+ or -] 0.81 (b) 89.16 [+ or -] 1.45 (bcd)
6 12.85 [+ or -] 1 (cd) 82.16 [+ or -] 4.22 (cd)
7 9.26 [+ or -] 0.36 (g) 69.83 [+ or -] 2.12 (ab)
8 8.91 [+ or -] 0.15 (g) 97.66 [+ or -] 2.12 (e)
9 10.29 [+ or -] 0.31 (efg) 79.33[+ or -]4.51 (g)
10 11.63 (de) [+ or -] 0.4 67.16 [+ or -] 2.8 (g)
11 6.03 [+ or -] 1.01 (h) 52 [+ or -] 3.6 (g)
12 8.97 [+ or -] 0.55 (g) 98.5 [+ or -] 5.19 (ab)
SEM 1.125 6.208

Means with the different superscripts within a column are
significantly different (P<0.05).
TN: total nitrogen, TVFA: total volatile fatty acids

Table 4: In vitro digestibility of the treatments

Treatments DMD*%

1 56.45 [+ or -] 0.59 (cde)
2 54.09 [+ or -] 1.41 (ef)
3 49.26 [+ or -] 3.32 (f)
4 54.86 [+ or -] 2.51 (cde)
5 56.37 [+ or -] 0.17 (cde)
6 58.98 [+ or -] 0.33 (abcd)
7 54.83 [+ or -] 2.65 (cde)
8 56.44 [+ or -] 0.65 (cde)
9 62.08 [+ or -] 1.74 (a)
10 59.61 [+ or -] 0.8 (abc)
11 60.44 [+ or -] 1.44 (ab)
12 53.23 [+ or -] 1.39 (ef)
MSE 2.691

Treatments OMD% DOMD%

1 57.99 [+ or -] 1.38 (bcde) 43.64 [+ or -] 0.81 (bde)
2 55.63 [+ or -] 1.37 (bcde) 40.96 [+ or -] 0.73 (cde)
3 50.55 [+ or -] 2.26 (g) 38.4 [+ or -] 3.81 (e)
4 53.15 [+ or -] 3.24 (efg) 44.52 [+ or -] 2.2 (abc)
5 58.11 [+ or -] 1.29 (bcde) 40.99 [+ or -] 0.89 (cde)
6 59.34 [+ or -] 1.62 (bcd) 47.18 [+ or -] 1.31 (ab)
7 56.72 [+ or -] 1.35 (bcde) 43.75 [+ or -] 2.66 (bcd)
8 65.92 [+ or -] 2.78 (a) 44.45 [+ or -] 2.28 (abc)
9 60.98 [+ or -] 0.41 (abc) 49.88 [+ or -] 1.53 (a)
10 62.57 [+ or -] 2.47 (ab) 46.12 [+ or -] 1.04 (abc)
11 62.57 [+ or -] 2.47 (ab) 49.48 [+ or -] 1.62 (a)
12 50.7 [+ or -] 1.22 (fg) 35 [+ or -] 0.38 (cde)
MSE 3.613 3.232

DMD Dry matter digestibility; OMD Organic matter digestibility;
DOMD Digestible organic matter in dry matter. Means with the
different superscripts within a column are significantly
different (P<0.05).
COPYRIGHT 2012 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Author:Karkoodi, K.; Ghaffari, S.A.; Moradi, P.
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAN
Date:Oct 1, 2012
Words:3998
Previous Article:Determining the prevalence and causes of sport injuries among female volleyball players of Iran super league.
Next Article:The environmental evaluation analysis of traffic noise pollution level in region 6, Tehran, Iran.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters