Citrus pulp, fresh

Datasheet

Description

Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans

Common names

Fresh citrus pulp
Fresh citrus peels, citrus rinds

Species

Citrus × floridana (J. Ingram & H. Moore) Mabb. ; Citrus × limon ; Citrus × paradisi Macfad. ; Citrus × sinensis (L.) Osbeck ; Citrus × tangerina Tanaka ; Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle ; Citrus limetta Risso ; Citrus reticulata Blanco ; Citrus spp. [Rutaceae]

Taxonomic information

Oranges: Citrus × sinensis (L.) Osbeck
Tangerines: Citrus × tangerina Tanaka
Mandarin oranges (mandarins, mandarines): Citrus reticulata Blanco
Lemons: Citrus × limon
Limes: several species, including key lime Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle, limequat Citrus × floridana (J. Ingram & H. Moore) Mabb., Citrus limetta Risso etc.
Grapefruits: Citrus × paradisi Macfad.

Related feed(s)

Description

Citrus (Citrus spp.) is one of the most important fruits crop worldwide (Crawshaw, 2004). Oranges (Citrus × sinensis (L.) Osbeck), tangerines (Citrus × tangerina Tanaka), mandarins (Citrus reticulata Blanco), lemons (Citrus × limon), limes (several species) and grapefruits (Citrus × paradisi Macfad.) are the main cultivated species. In 2010, oranges accounted for 61% of the world citrus production (82 million T) (USDA-FAS, 2010).

About 30% of the production of citrus fruits (and 40% of orange production) is processed (USDA-FAS, 2010), principally to make juice, and results in large quantities of by-products. Citrus pulp is the solid residue that remains after fresh fruits are squeezed into juice. It amounts to 50-70% of the fresh weight of the original fruit and contains the peel (60-65%), internal tissues (30-35%) and seeds (0-10%) (Crawshaw, 2004; Göhl, 1978). Citrus pulp is usually made from oranges but may also contain by-products of other citrus fruits, notably grapefruits and lemons (Crawshaw, 2004).

Citrus pulp is used as a cereal substitute in ruminant feeds, due to its high energy content and good digestibility in ruminant species. Large amounts of fresh citrus pulp are available in the harvest season, which in many countries coincides with the dry season when grass is scarce (Göhl, 1978). Fresh citrus pulp has a natural acidity but is still quite perishable due to its high content of water and soluble sugars (Rihani, 1991). It ferments and sours quickly when it is in contact with the air, and can be a haven for breeding flies if allowed to spoil (Rihani, 1991; Fuller, 2004; Göhl, 1978). It is also quite bulky and, for all those reasons, fresh citrus pulp is usually fed to animals in the vicinity of the processing plants. However, it can accumulate too rapidly for immediately local consumption, but can be treated by ensiling (as it stores well in the absence of air), or alkali treatment for longer storage (Wing, 2003). Much of the pulp is dried and exported around the world (Crawshaw, 2004): for information about the dried product, see the Citrus pulp, dried datasheet.

Distribution

Unlike dried pulp, which is distributed worldwide, fresh citrus pulp is normally available close to the processing plants. The main producer of citrus fruit for processing is Brazil (47% of the world production), followed by the USA (29%) (USDA-FAS, 2010).

Processes

Silage

Ensiling citrus pulp is a good method to make it available for year-round feeding (Fuller, 2004; Göhl, 1978). The silage has a pleasant odour and is readily eaten by cattle. The process can take less than 50 days. In order to obtain a firm silage, the pulp can be pressed before ensiling or mixed with grass or hay (Göhl, 1978). Ensiling fresh citrus pulp with partially dried grass or with legumes that cannot be successfully ensiled on their own is advantageous since it provides organic acids (particularly malic and oxalic acids) and enhances fermentation quality. Citrus pulp enhances overall silage quantity and quality (more sugars, more acidic bacteria, lower pH) and reduces the need for acid additives (Crawshaw, 2004). Citrus pulp can absorb moisture coming from feeds such as brewers' grain and is thus used to reduce effluent risk and nutrient loss from these materials (Crawshaw, 2004; Fuller, 2004).

Fresh citrus pulp silage can be preserved in good condition without an additive (Megias et al., 1993; Itavo et al., 2000a; Revuelta Llano et al., 2008) or mixed with sugarcane bagasse in order to increase dry matter content (Montejo et al., 2008). Additives (formic, acetic or propionic acid or enzyme inoculate) do not improve fresh citrus pulp silage quality (Itavo et al., 2000a). Moreover, citrus pulp ensiled without additives gives better results in energy conversion efficiency measured by production of volatile fatty acids (Itavo et al., 2000b).

Citrus pulp silage has a much higher weight per volume than that of grass or maize silage, therefore silos in which it is to be made should be adequately reinforced. This problem does not apply to trench silos (Göhl, 1978).

Ammoniation

Ammoniation can considerably increase the N content of citrus pulp as ammonia easily and stably binds with pectins. Ammoniation is achieved by loading citrus pulp into a long polyethylene sleeve and introducing ammonia gas into one end. As ammoniation occurs, it turns the pulp brown and heats it. When the ammonia reaches the opposite end of the sleeve the gas is turned off and the excess ammonia is allowed to escape before the pulp is fed to cattle. However, this method appears to offer little advantage compared to feeding a protein supplement (Göhl, 1978).

Environmental impact

Citrus juice production is often a highly integrated industry, and its environmental impact must be assessed across the entire production chain, from fruit cultivation to the production of juice and essential oils. Life-cycle assessments of the citrus industry have been made for Italy (Beccali et al., 2009; Beccali et al., 2010), Brazil (Coltro et al., 2009) and Spain (Ribal et al., 2009). Typically, citrus production requires irrigation, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and soil correctors. Fruit selection and washing, juice and essential oil production as well as citrus pulp dehydration all need fossil fuel energy and result in wastewaters that require treatment facilities.

The use of citrus pulp for animal feeding was found to be an effective way to decrease waste output. An exhaustive analysis should include an assessment of the environmental burdens associated to substitute feeds, and of the associated costs of other methods of citrus pulp disposal. Anaerobic digestion of citrus pulp can produce biogas to be used in the manufacturing process, thereby reducing the energy demand, but it does not reduce waste (Beccali et al., 2010).

Nutritional aspects

Nutritional attributes

Fresh citrus pulp has a similar composition to that of the dried citrus pulp, and the DM typically contains up to 40% soluble fibre (pectins) and carbohydrates 5-10% DM. Dry matter is usually about 20%. It has lower calcium content (0.5-0.8% DM) than dried citrus pulp since lime is not added. While there are differences in acidity between the juices of citrus species (oranges vs. lemons for instance), the resulting pulps have similar pH values in the region of 3.9-4 (Crawshaw, 2004).

Potential constraints

Mineral imbalance

Citrus by-products have an unbalanced Ca:P ratio that may cause milk fever in dairy cows (Bampidis et al., 2006).

Rumen parakeratosis

High levels of citrus pulp in ruminant diets can result in rumen parakeratosis, a digestive condition that has been widely reported in livestock fed high-concentrate, low-roughage rations (Arthington et al., 2002). Large amounts of volatile fatty acids, particularly butyric acid, cause rumen papillae to become enlarged and keratinized, thus restricting nutrient absorption and impairing animal performance (Brugère-Picoux, 2004).

Mycotoxins

Fresh citrus pulp can become mouldy leading to the formation of mycotoxins. The method of storage has to be correct (Bampidis et al., 2006).

Limonin

Limonin is a triterpenoid present in the seeds and skins that imparts a bitter taste to citrus pulp. If large quantities of seeds are present their limonin content may render the pulp toxic to non-ruminants, even at a level of 2.5% of their diets (Rihani, 1991; Fuller, 2004; Devendra, 1988). It has been suggested that limonin caused intestinal irritation and poor absorption of the nutriments in broilers (El Boushy et al., 2000).

Limonin should not be confounded with limonene, another terpenoid present in large quantities in citrus peels and that is responsible for the characteristic odour of citrus. Limonene is practically non-toxic to birds and mammals (EPA, 1994).

Lectins

There have been reports of a Type IV hypersensitivity reaction that caused the death from haemorragia and heart failure of several cows fed citrus pulp. This inflammatory reaction may be the result of a lectin-like hemagglutinating activity thought to be present in citrus pulp. This toxicosis could not be reproduced in sheep and rabbits (Saunders et al., 2000; Tokarnia et al., 2001).

Other natural compounds

Compounds such as tannins, saponins, phytates, oxalates and flavonoids have been identified in citrus peels but they are below the levels reported to be toxic to livestock species (Oluremi et al., 2007).

Pesticides

Contamination with pesticide residues can occur and depends on the compound, dose used, amount of rain, time between application and harvest and citrus species. In Brazil, pesticide residues in citrus pulp have decreased in the early 2000s due to a more rational application of pesticides (Oliveira et al., 2004).

Ruminants

Cattle

Fresh citrus pulp is palatable to cattle but may require some adaptation, and storing (one or two weeks storage have been reported) to maximise feed intake. The higher palatability may be due to changes in the citrus pulp rather than to an adaptation of the cows (Crawshaw, 2004). Citrus pulp can be fed fresh or as silage to ruminants. Mature cattle accustomed to this, assuming 20% DM as quoted above, will consume 6-10 kg DM/day (Göhl, 1978). Intakes of 11 kg/day citrus press cake silage have been reported for mature cows in Florida (Becker et al., 1946).

Dairy cows

As stated above, fresh or ensiled citrus pulp, as all citrus by-products, have an unbalanced Ca:P ratio that may cause milk fever in cattle at, or soon after, parturition (Bath et al., 1980 cited by Bampidis et al., 2006).

Fresh citrus pulp silage offered to crossbred dairy cows fed ad libitum on a restricted tropical pasture/concentrate (0.5 kg) based diet resulted in lower milk yield (6.4 kg/cow/day vs. 7.3 kg/cow/day) but did not alter milk quality (Montejo et al., 2008).

Fattening cattle

Crossbred cull cows (380-428 kg live weight) grazing poor quality winter tropical native grassland and supplemented with 15 kg/day of fresh citrus pulp (about 2 kg DM) for 3-4 months had higher daily weight gains than unsupplemented cows (352-612 g/d vs. 73-372 g/d) (Navamuel et al., 2002; Coppo et al., 2003). Under similar conditions, fresh citrus pulp supplementation of younger animals (220 kg) did not improve weight gain during a 3-month period (Coppo et al., 2006). In Cuba, fattening bulls fed on ensiled citrus pulp, hay and concentrate gained 633 g/day/head (Ojeda Garcia, 2010).

Sheep

Dairy sheep

Fresh citrus pulp can replace 30% lucerne hay in late gestation and post-lambing ewes, because it enhances total diet digestibility and decreases consumption, without deleterious effects on lamb growth, wool production or ewe live weight (Sparkes et al., 2010). Fresh citrus pulp included at 70% in a silage mixture had no effect on milk production or milk composition but increased fat content (6.85% vs. 5.85% ) when offered to primiparous dairy ewes in late lactation (Volanis et al., 2006).

Fattening lambs

Pressed citrus pulp can replace up to 75% corn silage in a fattening diet for lambs without any effect on growth or carcass composition. The higher daily weight gain is obtained with 50% replacement of the corn silage (Pereira et al., 2008).

A silage mixture of 80% fresh citrus pulp and 20% wheat straw, with 70% of the concentrate normally offered to lambs in an oat hay/concentrate based diet, resulted in lower concentrate intake and had no effect on daily weight gain or dressing percentage. Citrus silage gave better carcass conformation and less carcass fatness and proved to be economically interesting for lamb production (Scerra et al., 2001).

Wool sheep

Fresh citrus pulp included at up to 30% of the diet can replace lupin seeds in an alfalfa chaff-based diet for wethers without altering intake, daily weight gain and wool quality (Fung et al., 2010).

Pigs

Ensiled fresh citrus pulp can be included at 5 to 10% (DM basis) in the diet of growing pigs and helps to reduce feeding costs. It has potential benefits on gut microbiology and meat quality and no detrimental effects on growth performance. However, intake and performances were limited in the first weeks of a trial, as the fermentative capacity of pigs increases with age and exposure to a new diet. The adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract to ensiled citrus pulp digestion required 3 to 4 weeks (Cerisuelo et al., 2010).

Rabbits

No information seems available in the international literature on the use of fresh citrus pulp in rabbit feeding (November 2016). However dried citrus pulp could be used safely up to 30-40% in the diet of growing rabbit, as a source of energy similarly to cereals (Martinez Pascual et al., 1980; Fernandez Carmona et al., 1980; de Blas et al., 1990). Thus, like brewer's grains for example which may be used fresh or dried (Lebas, 2013) fresh citrus pulp could most probably represent 20-30% of rabbit's ration (DM basis) as a source of energy and highly digestible fibre (Fernandez Carmona et al., 1980). The main risk with higher proportions is deadly digestive troubles due to an excess of digestible fibre, if the citrus pulp are not associated in the daily ration with a source of lignified fibre (Gidenne, 2015).

Nutritional tables

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Citrus pulp, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	17.5	3.8	11.1	24.9	19
Crude protein	% DM	6.5	1.3	4.1	9.1	25
Crude fibre	% DM	12.1	4.1	7.4	23.2	18
Neutral detergent fibre	% DM	19.7	5.6	18.4	36.3	8	*
Acid detergent fibre	% DM	14.3	6.2	4	25.3	14	*
Lignin	% DM	2	1.4	1	5.7	9
Ether extract	% DM	4.3	2	0.4	8.3	15
Ash	% DM	4.4	1.3	3	9.2	22
Insoluble ash	% DM	0.3
Starch (polarimetry)	% DM	4.4				1
Starch (enzymatic)	% DM	0.05
Total sugars	% DM	25.8				1	*
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.3		14.7	19.7	2	*

Amino acids	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Alanine	g/16g N	4.4	0.5	3.3	5	7
Arginine	g/16g N	4.8	1.1	2.5	5.7	7
Aspartic acid	g/16g N	10.1	1.7	7.5	11.9	7
Cystine	g/16g N	1	0.1	0.8	1.1	5
Glutamic acid	g/16g N	8.2	1.1	6.5	9.9	7
Glycine	g/16g N	4.2	0.6	3	5	7
Histidine	g/16g N	2.1	0.6	1	2.7	8
Isoleucine	g/16g N	3.2	0.6	2	4.1	8
Leucine	g/16g N	5.5	0.7	4	6.5	8
Lysine	g/16g N	3.4	0.7	1.9	4	8
Methionine	g/16g N	1.2	0.1	1	1.4	7
Methionine+cystine	g/16g N	2.2					*
Phenylalanine	g/16g N	4	1	2.1	5	7
Phenylalanine+tyrosine	g/16g N	6.8					*
Proline	g/16g N	8.3				1
Serine	g/16g N	4.1	0.9	2.6	5	6
Threonine	g/16g N	3.2	0.4	2.3	3.6	7
Tryptophan	g/16g N	0.9		0.8	1	2
Tyrosine	g/16g N	2.8	0.8	1.1	3.3	6
Valine	g/16g N	4.3	0.7	2.8	4.9	7

Fatty acids	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Myristic acid C14:0	% fatty acids	0.7		0.6	0.8	4
Palmitic acid C16:0	% fatty acids	22.5	2.6	18	26.4	17
Palmitoleic acid C16:1	% fatty acids	1.3	1.2	0	4.1	16
Stearic acid C18:0	% fatty acids	4.8	4.1	1.7	15.9	17
Oleic acid C18:1	% fatty acids	14.9	9.8	2.4	31.9	17
Linoleic acid C18:2	% fatty acids	32.8	8.4	14.6	44.7	17
Linolenic acid C18:3	% fatty acids	19.8	9.6	6.3	36.6	17

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	7.8	1	6.1	9.4	7
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.5	0.6	0.3	2	6
Potassium	g/kg DM	5.1				1
Sodium	g/kg DM	0.6				1
Chlorine	g/kg DM	0.3
Magnesium	g/kg DM	0.7				1
Sulfur	g/kg DM	1.2
Manganese	mg/kg DM	8
Zinc	mg/kg DM	14
Copper	mg/kg DM	5				1
Iron	mg/kg DM	80

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	77					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	14.1					*
MEn growing pig	MJ/kg DM	13.6					*
NE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	9					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	64.7					*

Poultry nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
AMEn cockerel	MJ/kg DM	6.8					*
AMEn broiler	MJ/kg DM	6.6					*

Ruminants nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	87.3				1	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	84.1					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	12.9					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	64.5				1	*
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	66					*
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%)	%	72					*
a (N)	%	35				1
b (N)	%	59				1
c (N)	h-1	0.065				1
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	71					*
Dry matter degradability (effective, k=4%)	%	77					*
a (DM)	%	34				1
b (DM)	%	61				1
c (DM)	h-1	0.095				1

Rabbit nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
DE rabbit	MJ/kg DM	12.8					*
MEn rabbit	MJ/kg DM	12.6					*
Energy digestibility, rabbit	%	70.1					*
Nitrogen digestibility, rabbit	%	63.7					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2017; Alibes et al., 1990; Martinez Pascual et al., 1980; Obradovic, 1969; Onwuka et al., 1997; Silva et al., 1997

Last updated on 29/09/2020 15:30:16

Orange peels, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	16.1				1
Crude protein	% DM	6.8				1
Crude fibre	% DM	6.2				1
NDF	% DM	14.1					*
ADF	% DM	9.1					*
Ether extract	% DM	1.9				1
Ash	% DM	3.7				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.3					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	13.0				1
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.2				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	98.1					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	94.6					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	17.3					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	14.6					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	76.8					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	81.3					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	14.9					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	74.2					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Neumark, 1970

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:44

Orange peels, silage

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	19.6				1
Crude protein	% DM	7.7				1
Crude fibre	% DM	14.3				1
NDF	% DM	21.8					*
ADF	% DM	16.1					*
Ether extract	% DM	2.6				1
Ash	% DM	5.1				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.1					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	13.8				1
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.0				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	87.0					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	83.5					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	15.1					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	12.6					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	67.7					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	71.4					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	12.9					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	61.1					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Neumark, 1970

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:44

Grapefruit peels, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	17.9				1
Crude protein	% DM	6.7				1
Crude fibre	% DM	10.6				1
NDF	% DM	18.3					*
ADF	% DM	12.9					*
Ether extract	% DM	1.7				1
Ash	% DM	3.9				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.2					*

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	92.1					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	88.5					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	16.1					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	13.5					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	70.6					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	75.9					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	13.8					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	67.9					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Neumark, 1970

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:16

Grapefruit peels, silage

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	19.2				1
Crude protein	% DM	7.3				1
Crude fibre	% DM	13.0				1
NDF	% DM	20.6					*
ADF	% DM	15.0					*
Ether extract	% DM	2.0				1
Ash	% DM	4.2				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.3					*

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	88.8					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	85.3					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	15.6					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	13.0					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	68.5					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	73.0					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	13.3					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	64.6					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Neumark, 1970

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:16

Lime peels, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	18.3				1
Crude protein	% DM	7.8				1
Crude fibre	% DM	16.9				1
NDF	% DM	24.3					*
ADF	% DM	18.3					*
Ether extract	% DM	5.0				1
Ash	% DM	3.6				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.6					*

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	83.4					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	80.7					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	15.0					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	12.5					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	64.5					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	68.2					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	12.7					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	61.3					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Devendra et al., 1970

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:28

Lime peels, silage

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	23.0				1
Crude protein	% DM	10.6				1
Crude fibre	% DM	21.0				1
NDF	% DM	28.2					*
ADF	% DM	21.9					*
Ether extract	% DM	6.4				1
Ash	% DM	9.5				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	17.6					*

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	77.8					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	74.2					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	13.1					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	10.7					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	66.7					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	63.2					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	11.1					*
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig	%	44.7					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Devendra et al., 1970

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:28

References

Arthington, J. D. ; Kunkle, W. E. ; Martin, A. M., 2002. Citrus pulp for cattle. Vet. Clin. Food Anim., 18: 317-326
Assefa, A. D.; Saini, R. K.; Keum, Y. S., 2017. Fatty acids, tocopherols, phenolic and antioxidant properties of six citrus fruit species: A comparative study. J. Food Measure. Charact., 11 (4): 1665–1675
Bampidis, V. A. ; Robinson, P. H., 2006. Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 128: 175–217
Beccali, M. ; Cellura, M. ; Iudicello, M. ; Mistretta, M., 2009. Resource consumption and environmental impacts of the agrofood sector: life cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products. Environmental Management, 43 (4): 707-724
Beccali, M. ; Cellura, M. ; Iudicello, M. ; Mistretta, M., 2010. Life cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products. Sensitivity analysis and improvement scenarios. J. Environ. Manage., 91 (7): 1415-1428
Becker, R. B. ; Davis, G. K. ; Kirk, W. G. ; Dix Arnold, P. T., 1946. Citrus pulp silage. Univ. Florida Agric. Exp. Station. Bull. N° 423, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Brugère-Picoux, J., 2004. Maladie des moutons. France Agricole Editions, p. 137
Cerisuelo, A. ; Castello, L. ; Moset, V. ; Martinez, M. ; Hernandez, P. ; Piquera, O. ; Gomez, E. ; Gasa, J. ; Lainez, M., 2010. The inclusion of ensiled citrus pulp in diets for growing pigs: effects on voluntary intake, growth performance, gut microbiology and meat quality. Livest. Sci., 134: 180–182
Coltro, L. ; Mourad, A. L. ; Kletecke, R. M. ; Mendonca, T. A. ; Germer, S. P. M., 2009. Assessing the environmental profile of orange production in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 14 (7): 656-664
Coppo, J. A. ; Mussart, N. B. ; Revidatti, M. A. ; Navamuel, J. M. ; Fioranelli, S. A., 2003. Weight gain and serum lipidic changes in citrus pulp supplemented wintering cows in Argentina. Veterinaria. México, 34 (4)
Coppo, J.A. ; Mussart, N.B, 2006. Orujo de citrus como suplemento invernal de vaquillas cruza cebú en Argentina. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria REDVET, 7 (4)
Crawshaw, R., 2004. Co-product feeds: animal feeds from the food and drinks industries. Nothingham University Press
de Blas, J. C. ; Villamide, M. J., 1990. Nutritive value of beet and citrus pulps for rabbits. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 31 (3-4): 239-246
Devendra, C., 1988. Non-conventional feed resources and fibrous agricultural residues. Strategies for expanded utilization. Proceedings of a Consultation held in Hisar, India, 21-29 March 1988, IDRC, ICAR
El Boushy, A. R. Y. ; van der Poel, A. F. B., 2000. Handbook of poultry feed from waste: processing and use. Springer-Verlag New York, 428 p.
EPA, 1994. Limonene. R.E.D. Facts EPA-738-F-94-030
Fadel, J. G., 1999. Quantitative analysis of selected plant by-product feedstuffs, a global perspective. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 79 (4): 255-268
FAO, 2006. Citrus: Statistics, fresh and processed citrus fruit. Annual statistics, Commodities and Trade Division, FAO, Rome
Fernandez-Carmona, J.; Martinez-Pascual, J.L.; Hernandez, J., 1980. Efecto del hidroxido calcico sobre la digesibilidad de la pulpa de citricos. 2nd World Rabbit Congress, Barcelona 2: 181-183
Fuller, M. F., 2004. The encyclopedia of farm animal nutrition. CABI Publishing Series, 606 pp
Fung, Y. T. E. ; Sparkes, A. J. ; van Ekris, I. ; Chaves, A. V. ; Bush, R. D., 2010. Effects of feeding fresh citrus pulp to Merino wethers on wool growth and animal performance. Anim. Prod. Sci., 50: 52–58
Gidenne, T., 2015. Dietary fibres in the nutrition of the growing rabbit and recommendations to preserve digestive health: a review. Animal, 9 (2): 227-242
Göhl, B., 1978. Citrus by-products for animal feed. In: Ruminant nutrition: selected articles from the World Animal Review, FAO, 1978
Itavo, L. C. V. ; dos Santos, G. T. ; Cabreira Jobim, C. ; Voltolini, T. V. ; Bortolassi, J. R. ; Ferreira, C. C. B., 2000. Conservation of fresh orange peel by ensilage process using additives. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 29 (5): 1474-1484
Itavo, L. C. V. ; dos Santos, G. T. ; Cabreira Jobim, C. ; Voltolini, T. V. ; Ferreira, C. C. B., 2000. Evaluation of orange peel silage with different additives by rumen fermentation parameters and energy contribution from volatile fatty acids. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 29 (5):1491-1497
Lebas, F., 2013. Feeding strategies for small and medium scale rabbit units. 3rd Conf. Asian Rabbit Prod. Association - Bali Indonesia - 27-29 August 2013
Martinez Pascual, J.; Fernandez Carmona, J., 1980. Citrus pulp in diets for fattening lambs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 5 (1): 11-22
Megias, M. D. ; Martinez Teruela, A. ; Gallego, J. A. ; Nuñez, J. M., 1993. Chemical changes during the ensiling of orange peel. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 43 (3-4): 269-274
Mirzaei-Aghsaghali, A. ; Maheri-Sis, N., 2008. Nutritive value of some agro-industrial by-products for ruminants - A review. World J. Zool., 3 (2): 40-46
Montejo, I. L. ; Lamela, L. ; Sanchez, T. ; Lopez, O., 2008. Milk production with citrus pulp silage. Pastos y Forrajes, 31 (2)
Navamuel, J. ; Fioranelli, S. ; Capellari, A. ; Revidatti, M. ; Coppo, N. ; Coppo, Y., 2002. Ganancia de peso en vacas de invernada suplementadas con pulpa de citrus. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 14 (1)
Neumark, H., 1970. Personal communication. Volcani Institute of Agricutural Reseach, Israel
NRC, 1983. Underutilized resources as animal feedstuffs. National Academies Press, Washington D. C.
Obradovic, M., 1969. Unpublished data. FAO, Cyprus
Ojeda Garcia, F., 2010. Use of different technologies to guarantee feeding animals in the tropic. Advances in Animal Biosciences: International Sustainable Animal Production in the Tropics: farming in a changing world
Oliveira, N. J. F. de; Melo, M. M., 2004. Intoxicacoes relacionadas a ingestao de polpa citrica em bovinos. Veterinaria Noticias, Uberlandia, 10 (1): 111-120
Oluremi, O. I. A. ; Ngi, J. ; Andrew, I. A., 2007. Phytonutrients in citrus fruit peel meal and nutritional implication for livestock production. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 20 (4)
Pereira, M. S. ; Ribeiros, E. L. de A. ; Mizubuti, Y. Y. ; Rocha, M. A. da; Kuraoka, J. T. ; Nakaghi, E. Y. O., 2008. Nutrient intake and performance of lambs in feedlot fed diets with different levels of pressed citrus pulp in substitution of corn silage. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 37 (1): 134-139
Revuelta Llano, D. ; Mosquera Lopez, D. ; Cuba Mora, F., 2008. Ensiling potential of orange fruit wastes (Citrus sinensis). Revista Ciencias tecnicas Agropecuarias, 17 (2): 41-44
Rey, B. ; Lebbie, S. H. B. ; Reynolds, L., 1992. Small ruminant research and development in Africa. Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference of the African Small Ruminant Research Network, ILRAD, Nairobi, Kenya, 10-14 December 1990
Ribal, J. ; Sanjuan, N. ; Clemente, G. ; Fenollosa, M. L., 2009. Eco-efficiency measurement in agricultural production. A case study on citrus fruits production. Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, 9 (2): 125-148
Rihani, N., 1991. Valeur alimentaire et utilisation des sous-produits des agrumes en alimentation animale. Options Méditerranéennes, Série Séminaires, 16: 113-117
Saunders, G. K. ; Blodgett, D. J. ; Hutchins, T. A. ; Prater, R. M. ; Robertson, J. L. ; Friday, P. A. ; Scarratt, W. K., 2000. Suspected citrus pulp toxicosis in dairy cattle. J Vet Diagn Invest 12:269–271
Scerra, V. ; Caparra, P. ; Foti, F. ; Lanza, M. ; Priolob, A., 2001. Citrus pulp and wheat straw silage as an ingredient in lamb diets: effects on growth and carcass and meat quality. Small Rumin. Res., 40: 51-56
Sparkes, 2010. Effects of replacing lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) hay with fresh citrus pulp on ruminal fermentation and ewe performance. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 23 (2): 197-204
Tokarnia, C. H. ; Peixoto, P. V. ; Cunha, B. R. M., 2001. Experiments with citrus pulp in sheep and rabbits. Pesq. Vet. Bras., 21 (4): 172-176
USDA-FAS, 2010. Citrus: World Markets and Trade. July 2010 Citrus Update. Foreign Agriculture Service - USDA
Volanis, M. ; Zoiopoulos, P. ; Panagou, E. ; Tzerakis, C., 2006. Utilization of an ensiled citrus pulp mixture in the feeding of lactating dairy ewes. Small Rumin. Res., 64:190–195
Volcani, R. ; Roderig, C., 1953. The enrichment of citrus peel silage with nitrogen by application of ammonia and ammonium sulphate. Ktavim, 1: 21–22
Wing, J. M., 2003. Citrus feedstuffs for dairy cattle. University of Florida, IFAS, 829

Datasheet citation

Heuzé V., Tran G., Hassoun P., Lebas F., 2017. Citrus pulp, fresh. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://feedipedia.org/node/679 Last updated on August 26, 2017, 1:35

English correction by Tim Smith (Animal Science consultant) and Hélène Thiollet (AFZ)

Image credits

Carlos Campos-Granados

Sponsored by

Automatic translation

Feed categories

Scientific names

Tools

Resources

Citrus pulp, fresh