Next Article in Journal
Organic Management Approaches and Practices to Support Sustainable Horticultural and Fruit Plants Production
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Peas (Pisum Sativum L.) as a Sustainable Source of Protein in Growing Pigs’ Diets on Production Efficiency, Nitrogen Metabolism and Gastrointestinal Tract Health
Previous Article in Journal
An Intelligent Field Monitoring System Based on Enhanced YOLO-RMD Architecture for Real-Time Rice Pest Detection and Management
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Grape Pomace Supplementation in Lamb Diets to Mitigate Haemonchus contortus Infection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/agriculture15080799
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

In Vitro Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Seed Crop Plants Damaged by Hailstorms and Strong Winds as Alternative Forages for Ruminants

by
Sonia Tassone
1,*,
Salvatore Barbera
1,
Rabeb Issaoui
2,
Hatsumi Kaihara
1,
Sara Glorio Patrucco
1 and
Khalil Abid
1
1
Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO, Italy
2
Independent Researcher, Tunis 1068, Tunisia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(8), 799; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080799
Submission received: 28 February 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 5 April 2025 / Published: 8 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Valorization of Agri-Food Waste Bioresources for Sustainable Livestock Feeding)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The increasing frequency of extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, has caused significant physical damage to crops worldwide. This study explores the potential of repurposing crop plants that exhibit structural breakage due to hailstorms and strong winds and were originally cultivated for seed production (amaranth, borage, camelina, flax, quinoa, soybean, and white lupin) as alternative forages for ruminants. Their nutritional value was assessed by analyzing chemical composition, in vitro dry matter degradability (DMD), in vitro neutral detergent fiber degradability (NDFD), estimated dry matter intake (DMI), and relative feed value (RFV) compared to conventional forages (alfalfa and ryegrass hay from undamaged plant). Results revealed significant variability among the damaged crops. Borage, amaranth, and white lupin exhibited superior DMD, NDFD, estimated DMI, and RFV, positioning them as promising forage alternatives. Soybean and quinoa showed protein content, DMD, NDFD, estimated DMI, and RFV comparable to alfalfa hay, suggesting their suitability as substitutes. However, camelina exhibited limited NDFD, while flax had low DMD, NDFD, estimated DMI, and RFV, indicating the need for pre-treatment strategies to optimize their nutritional value. Overall, repurposing weather-damaged borage, amaranth, white lupin, soybean, and quinoa as alternative forages for ruminants provides a promising approach to mitigating feed shortages, improving feed resource utilization, and optimizing resource utilization in livestock production.

1. Introduction

Livestock play a significant role in global agricultural production, contributing 15% of total food energy and 31% of dietary protein supply [1,2]. In ruminant farming, feed represents nearly 70% of production costs, making it a critical factor in the profitability, sustainability, and growth of the sector, as well as ensuring the availability of high-quality food resources for humans [3,4]. However, the livestock sector faces mounting challenges, particularly the rising feed costs due to increasing competition among the food, fuel, and feed industries. These challenges are further aggravated by the impacts of climate change, which disrupt agricultural systems and intensify feed shortages [5,6]. Climate change is leading to more frequent extreme weather events, such as hailstorms, strong winds, heavy rainfall, and flooding, which often cause physical damage to crops, including those grown for seed production, rendering crops unsuitable for human food systems [7,8,9,10]. The frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as hailstorms, are projected to increase under changing climatic conditions, amplifying their negative impacts on agricultural systems [9]. The intensity of climate-induced damage depends on factors such as hailstone diameter [9] and wind speed [10]. The impact of hailstones varies across crop types. Field crops are particularly susceptible to stem lodging, breakage, bruising, deterioration of fiber quality, grain shattering, pod shedding, and defoliation, often resulting in secondary infections. Horticultural crops frequently suffer fruit scarring, premature abscission of reproductive structures, fruit cracking, lesions, petiole breakage, and stem bruising. Similarly, vegetable crops are vulnerable to tissue damage, including necrotic lesions on leaves and fruits, stem bruising, twig breakage, and desiccation, which increase susceptibility to fungal infections [9]. Extreme wind events further exacerbate plant stress by causing abrasion of leaves and young tissues, compromising the cuticle and accelerating water loss and pathogen entry. This damage can arise from plant-to-plant friction or wind-blown particulates. Additionally, wind-induced tearing and folding of leaves in many species can intensify water loss, potentially leading to wilting or plant death, particularly in grasses where cuticle damage impairs water retention [10]. Additionally, climate change has fueled the rising prevalence of insect pests, further exacerbating crop damages [11]. Previous research in Canada demonstrated that frost-damaged flax plants could be repurposed as viable forage for sheep, with nutritional quality and digestibility comparable to traditional grass–legume hay [12]. Recent studies have also shown that some crops traditionally cultivated for seed production, such as quinoa, camelina, and soybean, have been successfully explored as forage alternatives for ruminants [13,14,15]. Notably, some of these plants, such as quinoa, can reduce methane emissions in ruminants, contributing to more environmentally sustainable livestock production [14]. Additionally, forage crops like camelina can improve milk quality in dairy ruminants [13]. These findings underscore the potential of repurposing damaged crops not only to mitigate feed shortages, but also to enhance sustainability of livestock systems.
However, research on the nutritional potential of crop plants affected by extreme weather events remains limited and, in some cases, entirely absent. Our hypothesis is that certain damaged crops, traditionally grown for seed production, could serve as alternative forage resources for ruminants. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the chemical composition and ruminal degradability of various physical damage crop plants grown for seed production and assess their suitability as alternative forage resources.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials

In the spring season 2024, the aerial parts of seed-producing crop plants specifically cultivated for seed production were collected in triplicate during the reproductive growth stage from multiple fields within the agricultural zone of the Piedmont region in northwestern Italy. These plants exhibited structural damage that made them economically unsuitable for harvest as food. The damage was attributed to hailstorms (with hailstones up to 2 cm in diameter) and strong winds (exceeding 70 km/h). The collected plants showed no visible signs of insect infestation, bacterial infection, or fungal contamination and did not pose a risk of toxicity to animals. The region of collection has a temperate climate, with spring temperatures ranging from −2 °C to 20 °C and relative humidity levels between 60% and 85% [16]. It is also characterized by some of the most severe hailstorms and rainstorm supercells in the Alpine region [17]. The soils in this region are characterized by a composition of 43% sand, 42% silt, and 15% clay, with 2% organic matter, a pH KCl of 6.4, and a cation exchange capacity of 25 mol kg−1 [18].
Specifically, amaranth (Amaranthus caudatus L.), borage (Borago officinalis L.), camelina (Camelina sativa L.), soybean (Glycine max L.), and white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) were harvested at the pod growth stage. Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) was harvested at the capsule growth stage, and quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa L.) at the grain filling growth stage. Two types of hay sourced from undamaged alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and undamaged ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) plants, cultivated in different fields within the same region and growing season, were included as reference forages, as they are the most commonly used forages in ruminant diets worldwide [19]. The plant materials were transported directly to the laboratory, dried at 60 °C for 24 h, and then ground to a particle size of 1 mm using a granulator (MLI 204; Bühler AG, Uzwil, Switzerland). The ground samples were stored in glass bottles with a capacity of 1 kg, at room temperature (20 °C) in a dark, cool environment for 2 months to preserve their chemical integrity.

2.2. Chemical Composition

Dry ground samples were analyzed according to AOAC [20] for dry matter (DM, #930.15), ash (#942.05), crude protein (CP, #984.13), and ether extract (EE, #942.05). The fiber fractions, specifically neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL), were determined using the Ankom 200 Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA), according to the procedures of Van Soest et al. [21]. Non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC) were determined according to the equation of NRC [22]:
N F C = 1000 − C P + E E + N D F + A s h
where
▪
NFCs are non-fiber carbohydrates in mg/g dry matter;
▪
CP is crude protein in mg/g dry matter;
▪
EE is ether extract in mg/g dry matter;
▪
NDF is neutral detergent fiber in mg/g dry matter;
▪
Ash in mg/g dry matter.

2.3. In Vitro Ruminal Degradability

The in vitro degradability of the samples was assessed using the Ankom DaisyII Incubator (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY, USA), following the manufacturer’s protocol [23], and was repeated three times. Rumen fluid was collected from three healthy Piedmontese bulls (average age: 16 months, average weight: 650 kg) immediately after slaughter at a slaughterhouse, following the standardized procedure described by Fortina et al. [24]. The rumen fluid was transported directly to the laboratory within 20 min after slaughter and maintained at 39 °C. In the laboratory, the rumen fluid was filtered through cheesecloth while ensuring a constant supply of carbon dioxide. Dried and ground feed samples (0.50 ± 0.01 g) were weighed in triplicate and placed into Ankom F57 filter bags (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA). Additionally, two empty Ankom bags were used as blanks. All bags were placed in an Ankom jar containing 400 mL of filtered rumen fluid and 1600 mL of buffer solution, which was flushed with carbon dioxide for two minutes, following the method described by Goering and Van Soest [25]. The fermentation jar was placed in the Ankom DaisyII Incubator at 39 °C with constant rotation at 1 rpm for 48 h. After the incubation period, the bags were removed, rinsed thoroughly with cold tap water until the water ran clear, and dried in a forced-air oven at 60 °C for 24 h. The bags were then weighed to determine the residue amount on DM basis. The residue was subsequently analyzed for NDF content using the Ankom 200 Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA). After adjusting the weight changes of the samples using the blank samples, the in vitro dry matter degradability (DMD) and neutral detergent fiber degradability (NDFD) were calculated with the following formulas:
D M D = D M 0 h − D M r e s i d u e D M   0 h × 1000
N D F D = N D F 0 h − N D F r e s i d u e N D F 0 h × 1000
where
▪
DMD is the dry matter degradability in mg/g dry matter;
▪
DM0h is the sample weight of dry matter before incubation in mg;
▪
DMresidue is the residue weight of dry matter after incubation in mg;
▪
NDFD is the neutral detergent fiber degradability in mg/g neutral detergent fiber;
▪
NDF0h is the sample neutral detergent fiber weight before incubation in mg;
▪
NDFresidue is the residue weight of neutral detergent fiber after incubation in mg.

2.4. Relative Indexes

The values obtained from the analysis of the damaged crop plants and conventional hays were used to calculate dry matter intake (DMI) and relative feed value (RFV) according to Weiss et al. [26], using the following formulas:
D M I = 1.2 N D F × 100
R F V = D M I × D M D 1.29
where
▪
DMI is the dry matter intake in percentage of body weight (BW);
▪
DMD is the dry matter degradability in percentage of dry matter;
▪
RFV is the relative feed value;
▪
NDF is the neutral detergent fiber in percentage of dry matter.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the PROC GLM procedure of SAS software (version 9.1; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The following statistical model was applied:
Y i j = μ + F e e d i + ε i j
where
▪
Yij is the experimental data;
▪
μ is the overall mean;
▪
Feedi is the effect ith feed;
▪
εij is the residual error.
Each parameter was measured in nine replicates for each feed. The statistical significance of the differences between means was assessed using the Tukey test, with a significance level set at a p-value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Nutritional Compounds

The evaluation of the chemical composition of damaged crop plants and conventional hays is shown in Table 1.
The CP content of the damaged crop plants in this study varied significantly, ranging from 100.2 to 153.9 mg/g DM. Damaged soybean and quinoa plants had the highest CP content, both approximately 150 mg/g DM, comparable to that of alfalfa hay. The other damaged crop plants had CP contents ranging from 100.2 to 131.4 mg/g DM, which was lower than that of alfalfa hay, but higher than that of ray-grass hay.
The EE content of the damaged crop plants in this study varied significantly. Camelina, flax, and white lupin plants exhibited the highest EE content, ranging from 26.1 to 30.0 mg/g DM, which was higher than the EE content in conventional hays. The EE content of the other damaged crops was comparable to that of conventional hays, ranging from 14.2 to 16.9 mg/g DM.
The fiber content of the damaged crop plants varied significantly. The NDF content ranged from 345.0 mg/g DM in borage plants to 684.7 mg/g DM in flax plants. The ADF content ranged from 303.7 mg/g DM in borage plants to 551.2 mg/g DM in flax plants, while the ADL content ranged from 65.0 mg/g DM in quinoa plants to 152.2 mg/g DM in flax plants.
The mineral composition of the damaged crop plants also varied considerably, ranging from 57.4 mg/g DM in flax to 194.1 mg/g DM in borage. Only damaged camelina plants exhibited a mineral content similar to that of conventional alfalfa and ryegrass hays, whereas damaged flax plants had a lower mineral content compared to conventional hays.
The NFC content of the damaged crop plants varied significantly, ranging from 72.1 mg/g DM in soybean plants to 318.6 mg/g DM in borage plants.

3.2. Ruminal Degradability, Dry Matter Intake, and Relative Feed Value

The DMD, NDFD, estimated DMI, and RFV of damaged crop plants and conventional hays are presented in Table 2. Significant differences were observed among the evaluated forages for all measured parameters.
The DMD of the damaged crop plants ranged from 549.3 to 886.8 mg/g DM, exhibiting significant variability. Borage showed the highest DMD (886.8 mg/g DM), significantly surpassing all other forages. Amaranth (781.0 mg/g DM) and white lupin (765.2 mg/g DM) also exhibited high degradability, with values significantly greater than those of conventional hays (ryegrass: 655.4 mg/g DM; alfalfa: 641.0 mg/g DM). In contrast, flax recorded the lowest DMD (549.3 mg/g DM), significantly lower than conventional hays.
The NDFD of damaged crop plants varied considerably, ranging from 333.7 to 671.0 mg/g NDF. Borage (671.0 mg/g NDF) exhibited the highest NDFD, significantly surpassing all other forages, followed by amaranth (593.8 mg/g NDF). Both species demonstrated significantly greater NDFD than conventional hays (ryegrass: 518.2 mg/g NDF; alfalfa: 495.4 mg/g NDF). Conversely, camelina (333.7 mg/g NDF) and flax (341.4 mg/g NDF) had the lowest NDFD, significantly lower than conventional hays.
The estimated DMI also varied significantly. Damaged borage plants had the highest estimated DMI (3.5% BW), significantly higher than all other forages. Damaged amaranth plants (2.3% BW) and white lupin plants (2.3% BW) showed comparable intake, both significantly exceeding those of conventional hays (ryegrass: 1.9% BW; alfalfa: 1.9% BW). The lowest estimated DMI was observed for damaged flax plants (1.8% BW), which was significantly lower than that of conventional hays.
The RFV ranged from 74.3 to 239.3. Borage exhibited the highest RFV (239.3), significantly greater than all other tested forages. Amaranth (141.0) and white lupin (136.9) also had significantly higher RFV than conventional hays. In contrast, flax recorded the lowest RFV (74.3), significantly lower than ryegrass (99.0) and alfalfa (95.4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Nutritional Compounds

The chemical composition of unconventional feed plays a pivotal role in evaluating its suitability for ruminant nutrition, as it directly influences digestibility, microbial fermentation efficiency, and nutrient utilization [14,27,28].
The damaged crop plants assessed in this study exhibited significant variability in fiber content, with NDF and ADF exceeding the optimal thresholds for ruminant function, set at 250 mg/g DM for NDF and 190 mg/g DM for ADF [22]. These fiber components are crucial for maintaining rumen health, modulating ruminal motility, and sustaining fermentation efficiency and saliva production [29,30]. Damaged flax plants exhibited the highest NDF and ADF values, surpassing conventional hays, which aligns with previous findings highlighting the high fiber content in undamaged flax forage harvested at seed maturity in Italy [31]. Conversely, damaged borage plants displayed significantly lower NDF and ADF contents, consistent with reports of reduced fiber levels in undamaged borage forage harvested at the flowering stage in Iran [32]. Other damaged crops (soybean, amaranth, camelina, quinoa, and white lupin) contained ADF levels comparable to traditional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. These results corroborate prior studies that demonstrated similar ADF contents in undamaged soybean forage harvested at full pod stage in Turkey [3], undamaged amaranth forage harvested after 120 days of sowing the seed in South Korea [33], undamaged camelina forage at flowering in southern Italy [34], undamaged quinoa forage in Egypt [14], and undamaged white lupin forage at the bud stage in Kenya [35]. These variations in fiber composition among these damaged plants underscore their potential use in diet formulations to optimize fiber components and ensure effective ruminal function.
CP content is a critical determinant of forage quality, directly influencing microbial protein synthesis and nitrogen metabolism in the rumen [29,36]. In this study, all damaged crops exceeded the minimum CP threshold (70–80 mg/g DM) required to sustain microbial fermentation and rumen function [29,36]. Notably, damaged soybean and quinoa exhibited the highest CP values, comparable to alfalfa hay, reinforcing their potential as alternative protein-rich forages. These results are consistent with previous research reporting similar CP values in undamaged soybean forage harvested at pod formation in Turkey [37] and in the United States [38], as well as undamaged quinoa forage harvested before seed formation in Egypt [39]. Meanwhile, damaged flax, amaranth, camelina, and white lupin plants contained lower CP levels than hay sourced from undamaged alfalfa plants but exceeded those of hay sourced from undamaged ryegrass plants. These findings suggest that additional protein supplementation may be necessary when these crops are included in high-performance ruminant diets. Comparable CP contents have been reported in damaged flax hay in Canada [12], undamaged camelina forage harvested at the flowering stage in Italy [34], undamaged borage forage harvested at the flowering stage in Iran [32], and undamaged amaranth forage harvested after 120 days of sowing the seed in South Korea [33].
The EE content across all damaged crops remained within the acceptable range for ruminant diets (less than 60 mg/g DM) [40]. Among these, camelina, flax, and white lupin exhibited the highest EE levels, potentially contributing to improved fatty acid profiles, enhanced ruminal fermentation, and increased reproductive performance [40]. These results align with previous findings indicating comparable EE levels in damaged flax hay in Canada [12] and undamaged camelina forage harvested at the flowering stage in Italy [34]. Given their lipid content, strategic dietary incorporation of these crops may enhance the energy balance of ruminant diets while maintaining ruminal stability.
Mineral composition, often overlooked due to the inclusion of premixes in ruminant diets, plays a vital role in overall animal health and metabolic efficiency [41]. The mineral content of damaged crops varied widely, ranging from 57.4 to 194.1 mg/g DM. Among these, only damaged camelina plants contained mineral levels comparable to conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants, whereas flax had the lowest mineral content. These results are consistent with previous reports on mineral composition in damaged flax hay from Canada [12] and undamaged camelina forage harvested at the stem elongation stage in Italy [13]. Notably, damaged amaranth, borage, and quinoa exhibited significantly higher mineral contents, suggesting the potential for reducing premix mineral supplementation in ruminant diets to avoid imbalances [22]. Comparable mineral levels have been reported in undamaged borage at the flowering stage in Iran [32], undamaged quinoa forage in Egypt [14], and undamaged amaranth forage harvested after 120 days of sowing the seed in South Korea [33].

4.2. In Vitro Ruminal Degradability

Ruminal degradability is a crucial determinant of forage quality, influencing nutrient bioavailability, microbial efficiency, and overall ruminant performance [42].
In this study, significant variation was observed in the DMD of damaged crops, underscoring their diverse potential as alternative feed sources. Among the assessed damaged crop plants, borage (886.8 mg/g DM), amaranth (781.0 mg/g DM), and white lupin (765.0 mg/g DM) exhibited the highest DMD values, surpassing conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. This superior ruminal degradability suggests that these crops can provide highly digestible energy, and improving rumen microbial activity indicates their suitability for ruminants requiring high nutrient availability. The high degradability of these crops can be attributed to their lower lignin content and elevated concentrations of NFC, which facilitate microbial attachment and enzymatic hydrolysis [43,44]. These findings align with previous studies that reported high DMD values for undamaged amaranth forage harvested at flowering in Iran [45] and in Canada [46], undamaged borage forage harvested at the flowering stage in Iran [32], and undamaged white lupin forage harvested at the mid-bud stage in Kenya [35]. Conversely, damaged camelina plants (650.4 mg/g DM), quinoa plants (671.0 mg/g DM), and soybean plants (675.0 mg/g DM) exhibited intermediate DMD values, closely resembling those of conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. These results suggest that these damaged crops are viable alternatives that can be incorporated into ruminant diets. Prior research has demonstrated similar DMD values for undamaged soybean forage harvested at the pod stage in Turkey [47] and undamaged quinoa forage harvested in Egypt [14], and studies on heifers have indicated that undamaged quinoa forage can replace 45% of clover hay without compromising digestibility [14]. Damaged flax displayed the lowest DMD (549.3 mg/g DM), falling below conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. The limited degradability of flax is primarily attributed to its high ADL content, which restricts microbial access to structural carbohydrates and hinders enzymatic hydrolysis [29]. This finding is consistent with previous research on sheep diets, where damaged flax hay exhibited DMD values around 570 mg/g DM [12]. This suggests that pre-treatment strategies may be necessary to improve its ruminal degradability.
NDFD is a critical parameter for evaluating the nutritional value of forage in ruminant diets, as it directly affects voluntary feed intake, ruminal retention time, and overall digestion efficiency [48]. Among the damaged crops evaluated, borage (671.0 mg/g NDF) and amaranth (593.9 mg/g NDF) exhibited the highest NDFD, reinforcing their potential as digestible roughage sources. Their superior NDFD is likely due to their lower lignin content, which enhances microbial adherence and enzymatic breakdown [29]. The high NDFD of these damaged crops suggests their potential to enhance overall feed efficiency, improving both ruminal microbial activity and ruminal performance. These results contrast with findings from Canadian studies on undamaged amaranth forage harvested at the flowering stage, which reported lower NDFD values (421–422 mg/g NDF) [46]. The observed discrepancy may be attributed to differences in plant maturity at harvest, environmental conditions, and genetic variability among amaranth cultivars. Conversely, flax (341.4 mg/g NDF) and camelina (333.7 mg/g NDF) exhibited the lowest NDFD, falling below the values reported for conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. The low NDFD of damaged flax is attributed to its high lignin content, which acts as a structural barrier limiting microbial colonization and enzymatic hydrolysis [29], and camelina’s low NDFD may be linked to its high concentration of condensed tannins in its seeds, which form complexes with cell wall polysaccharides, thereby inhibiting microbial degradation [49]. The presence of these anti-nutritional factors poses challenges for incorporating damaged flax plants and camelina plants into ruminant diets, as their low NDFD can reduce total feed energy availability and animal performance [48]. Damaged quinoa plants (519.2 mg/g NDF), soybean plants (502.0 mg/g NDF), and white lupin plants (488.8 mg/g NDF) demonstrated NDFD values comparable to those observed in conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. This suggests that these damaged crops could serve as effective alternative forages for ruminants. These findings align with studies reporting closer NDFD values for undamaged white lupin harvested at the mid-bud stage [35]. However, lower NDFD values were previously observed in undamaged quinoa hay [50] and undamaged soybean forage harvested at seed development [51]. The variation in NDFD across studies may stem from differences in harvest timing, plant phenology, and cultivar selection, all of which influence fiber composition and degradability.

4.3. Estimated Dry Matter Intake and Relative Feed Value

The DMI is a crucial factor in forage utilization efficiency, influencing ruminant performance [52]. The estimated DMI of the damaged crop plants examined in this study exhibited significant variation. Among the evaluated crops, damaged borage plants displayed the highest estimated DMI (3.5% BW), followed by amaranth (2.3% BW), white lupin (2.3% BW), and camelina plants (2.3% BW). These values surpass those reported for conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants, reinforcing their potential as high-energy forages that can enhance animal productivity. Damaged quinoa plants (2.0% BW) and soybean plants (1.8% BW) exhibited estimated DMI comparable to conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants, indicating their potential as alternative forages without negatively affecting feed palatability. Previous findings reported higher estimated DMI (3.0% BW) for undamaged soybean forage harvested at seed development in South Korea [51]. This deference may be attributed to variations in harvest stage, environmental conditions, and the effects of extreme weather events, which can significantly alter the nutritional properties of the plants. In contrast, damaged flax exhibited the lowest estimated DMI (1.8% BW), less than conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants. This finding highlights the need for pre-treatment strategies to enhance their estimated DMI before their incorporation into ruminant diets.
The RFV is an integrative metric used to evaluate feed quality by considering both intake potential and degradability. It serves as a ranking tool for comparing the nutritional value of different feedstuffs and optimizing ration formulation for ruminants [41,53]. The RFV of damaged crop plants varied significantly, with damaged borage plants (239.3) exhibiting the highest value, followed by amaranth plants (141.0) and white lupin plants (136.9). These values surpass those of conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants, highlighting their superior forage quality and potential to enhance ruminal efficiency, making them a suitable candidate for high-performance ruminant diets. Damaged quinoa (103.0) and soybean plants (95.1) displayed RFV closer to those of traditional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants, suggesting that they can be incorporated into ruminant diets as reliable alternative forages. Conversely, damaged flax exhibited the lowest RFV (74.3) less than conventional hays sourced from undamaged alfalfa and undamaged ryegrass plants, reinforcing its limited forage quality.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the potential of damaged amaranth, borage, and white lupin as alternative forages for ruminants. Amaranth and borage demonstrated superior DMD, estimated DMI, and RFV, while soybean and quinoa showed nutritional content comparable to alfalfa hay. However, flax and camelina exhibited limited NDFD, suggesting the need for pre-treatment to enhance their nutritional value. Incorporating these damaged crops into ruminant diets can reduce reliance on conventional forages and promote agricultural sustainability. Further in vivo studies are recommended to evaluate their impact on ruminant performance and health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T., S.B. and K.A.; methodology, S.T., S.B. and K.A.; formal analysis, S.T.; investigation, S.T., S.G.P., H.K. and S.B.; data curation K.A. and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.T. and K.A.; writing—review and editing, S.T., S.B., R.I., K.A., S.G.P. and H.K.; supervision, S.T., K.A. and S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics committee approval was not necessary for this study because it was not realized directly in animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Godde, C.M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Mayberry, D.E.; Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Impacts of Climate Change on the Livestock Food Supply Chain; a Review of the Evidence. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khanal, P.; Pandey, D.; Næss, G.; Cabrita, A.R.J.; Fonseca, A.J.M.; Maia, M.R.G.; Timilsina, B.; Veldkamp, T.; Sapkota, R.; Overrein, H. Yellow Mealworms (Tenebrio Molitor) as an Alternative Animal Feed Source: A Comprehensive Characterization of Nutritional Values and the Larval Gut Microbiome. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 389, 136104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zorer Çelebi, Ş.; Şahar, A.K. Effects of Different Harvest Stages on Forage Yield and Quality of Soybean Cultivars Grown as Second Crops. Yuz. Yıl Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 33, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Makkar, H.P.S. Animal Nutrition in a 360-Degree View and a Framework for Future R&D Work: Towards Sustainable Livestock Production. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Uddin, M.E.; Kebreab, E. Review: Impact of Food and Climate Change on Pastoral Industries. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 543403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Muscat, A.; De Olde, E.M.; De Boer, I.J.M.; Ripoll-Bosch, R. The Battle for Biomass: A Systematic Review of Food-Feed-Fuel Competition. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 25, 100330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gobbo, S.; Ghiraldini, A.; Dramis, A.; Dal Ferro, N.; Morari, F. Estimation of Hail Damage Using Crop Models and Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez, J.L.; Fraile, R.; De La Madrid, J.L.; De La Fuente, M.T.; Rodríguez, P.; Castro, A. Crop Damage: The Hail Size Factor. J. Appl. Meteorol. 1996, 35, 1535–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, M.H.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.-J. Hail: Mechanisms, Monitoring, Forecasting, Damages, Financial Compensation Systems, and Prevention. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gardiner, B.; Berry, P.; Moulia, B. Review: Wind Impacts on Plant Growth, Mechanics and Damage. Plant Sci. 2016, 245, 94–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Subedi, B.; Poudel, A.; Aryal, S. The Impact of Climate Change on Insect Pest Biology and Ecology: Implications for Pest Management Strategies, Crop Production, and Food Security. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Whiting, F. Flax hay and straw as feeds for sheep. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1958, 38, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tedone, L.; Giannico, F.; Tufarelli, V.; Laudadio, V.; Selvaggi, M.; De Mastro, G.; Colonna, M.A. Camelina sativa (L. Crantz) Fresh Forage Productive Performance and Quality at Different Vegetative Stages: Effects of Dietary Supplementation in Ionica Goats on Milk Quality. Agriculture 2022, 12, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ebeid, H.M.; Kholif, A.E.; El-Bordeny, N.; Chrenkova, M.; Mlynekova, Z.; Hansen, H.H. Nutritive Value of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) as a Feed for Ruminants: In Sacco Degradability and in Vitro Gas Production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 35241–35252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kökten, K.; Seydosoglu, S.; Kaplan, M.; Boydak, E. Forage Nutritive Value of Soybean Varieties. Legume Res.—Int. J. 2014, 37, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tassone, S.; Barbera, S.; Glorio Patrucco, S.; Kaihara, H.; Abid, K. Seasonal and Altitudinal Effects on Chemical Composition and Rumen Degradability of Blackberry Leaves in Northwestern Italian Alps. Animals. 2025, 15, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Feldmann, M.; Hering, A.; Gabella, M.; Berne, A. Hailstorms and Rainstorms versus Supercells—A Regional Analysis of Convective Storm Types in the Alpine Region. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2023, 6, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fabietti, G.; Biasioli, M.; Barberis, R.; Ajmone-Marsan, F. Soil Contamination by Organic and Inorganic Pollutants at the Regional Scale: The Case of Piedmont, Italy. J. Soils Sediments 2010, 10, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dynes, R.A.; Henry, D.A.; Masters, D.G. Characterising Forages for Ruminant Feeding. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 16, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; p. 138. ISBN 978-0-309-06997-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. ANKOM Technology. In Vitro True Digestibility Using the DAISY Incubator 2017. Available online: https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/Method_3_InVitro_D200_D200I.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqHJY4msReXkIKDKOsGapF_57Ugxidzsnuz7ig4vAIbvRKrWzQx (accessed on 5 April 2025).
  24. Fortina, R.; Glorio Patrucco, S.; Barbera, S.; Tassone, S. Rumen Fluid from Slaughtered Animals: A Standardized Procedure for Sampling, Storage and Use in Digestibility Trials. Methods Protoc. 2022, 5, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Goering, H.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications). Agricultural Handbook; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1970; Volume 379. [Google Scholar]
  26. Weiss, W.P.; Conrad, H.R.; St. Pierre, N.R. A Theoretically-Based Model for Predicting Total Digestible Nutrient Values of Forages and Concentrates. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1992, 39, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Selim, A.S.M.; Hasan, M.N.; Rahman, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Islam, M.R.; Bostami, A.B.M.R.; Islam, S.; Tedeschi, L.O. Nutrient Content and in Vitro Degradation Study of Some Unconventional Feed Resources of Bangladesh. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Jabri, J.; Ammar, H.; Abid, K.; Beckers, Y.; Yaich, H.; Malek, A.; Rekhis, J.; Morsy, A.S.; Soltan, Y.A.; Soufan, W.; et al. Effect of Exogenous Fibrolytic Enzymes Supplementation or Functional Feed Additives on In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation of Chemically Pre-Treated Sunflower Heads. Agriculture 2022, 12, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. VanSoest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd ed.; Comstock: Ithaca, NY, USA; London, UK, 1994; ISBN 978-0-8014-2772-5. [Google Scholar]
  30. Abid, K.; Boudagga, S.; Abid, O.; Najar, T.; Jaouani, A. Bioconversion of Grape Pomace Waste into Suitable Alternative Feed for Ruminants with Pleurotus cornucopiae and Ganoderma resinaceum via Solid-State Fermentation Bioprocess. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Peiretti, P.G.; Meineri, G. Chemical Composition, Organic Matter Digestibility and Fatty Acid Content of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum, L.) Harvested at Five Stages of Growth. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1850–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kazemi, M.; Moheghi, M.M.; Tohidi, R. A Study on the Nutritional Characteristics of Some Plants and Their Effects on Ruminal Microbial Fermentation and Protozoa Population. AMB Express 2021, 11, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nogoy, K.M.C.; Yu, J.; Song, Y.G.; Li, S.; Chung, J.-W.; Choi, S.H. Evaluation of the Nutrient Composition, In Vitro Fermentation Characteristics, and In Situ Degradability of Amaranthus Caudatus, Amaranthus Cruentus, and Amaranthus Hypochondriacus in Cattle. Animals 2020, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Colonna, M.A.; Giannico, F.; Tufarelli, V.; Laudadio, V.; Selvaggi, M.; De Mastro, G.; Tedone, L. Dietary Supplementation with Camelina sativa (L. Crantz) Forage in Autochthonous Ionica Goats: Effects on Milk and Caciotta Cheese Chemical, Fatty Acid Composition and Sensory Properties. Animals 2021, 11, 1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mbugua, D.M.; Kiruiro, E.M.; Pell, A.N. In Vitro Fermentation of Intact and Fractionated Tropical Herbaceous and Tree Legumes Containing Tannins and Alkaloids. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 146, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Njidda, A.A.; Olatunji, E.A.; Garba, M.G. In Sacco and In Vitro Organic Matter Degradability (OMD) Of Selected Semi Arid Browse Forages. IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2013, 3, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Açikgöz, E.; Sincik, M.; Wietgrefe, G.; Sürmen, M.; Çeçen, S.; Yavuz, T.; Erdurmuş, C.; Göksoy, A.T. Dry Matter Accumulation and Forage Quality Characteristics of Different Soybean Genotypes. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2013, 37, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Seiter, S.; Altemose, C.E.; Davis, M.H. Forage Soybean Yield and Quality Responses to Plant Density and Row Distance. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 966–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salama, R.; Yacout, M.; Elgzar, M.; Awad, A. Nutritional evaluation of quinoa (chenopodium quinoa willd) crop as unconventional forage resource in feeding ruminants. Egypt. J. Nutr. Feeds 2021, 24, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bionaz, M.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Busato, S. Advances in Fatty Acids Nutrition in Dairy Cows: From Gut to Cells and Effects on Performance. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Kong, F.; Wang, W.; Li, S. Comparison of Nutritional Components, Ruminal Degradation Characteristics and Feed Value from Different Cultivars of Alfalfa Hay. Animals 2023, 13, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. El Hassan, S.M.; Lahlou Kassi, A.; Newbold, C.J.; Wallace, R.J. Chemical Composition and Degradation Characteristics of Foliage of Some African Multipurpose Trees. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000, 86, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jung, H.G.; Mertens, D.R.; Payne, A.J. Correlation of Acid Detergent Lignin and Klason Lignin with Digestibility of Forage Dry Matter and Neutral Detergent Fiber. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 1622–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jung, H.G.; Allen, M.S. Characteristics of Plant Cell Walls Affecting Intake and Digestibility of Forages by Ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sarmadi, B.; Rouzbehan, Y.; Rezaei, J. Influences of Growth Stage and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Chemical Composition, Phenolics, in Situ Degradability and in Vitro Ruminal Variables in Amaranth Forage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 215, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Seguin, P.; Mustafa, A.F.; Donnelly, D.J.; Gélinas, B. Chemical Composition and Ruminal Nutrient Degradability of Fresh and Ensiled Amaranth Forage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 3730–3736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Acikgoz, E.; Sincik, M.; Oz, M.; Albayrak, S.; Wietgrefe, G.; Turan, Z.M.; Goksoy, A.T.; Bilgili, U.; Karasu, A.; Tongel, O.; et al. Forage Soybean Performance in Mediterranean Environments. Field Crops Res. 2007, 103, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Oba, M.; Allen, M.S. Evaluation of the Importance of the Digestibility of Neutral Detergent Fiber from Forage: Effects on Dry Matter Intake and Milk Yield of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Riaz, R.; Ahmed, I.; Sizmaz, O.; Ahsan, U. Use of Camelina Sativa and By-Products in Diets for Dairy Cows: A Review. Animals 2022, 12, 1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Asher, A.; Galili, S.; Whitney, T.; Rubinovich, L. The Potential of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) Cultivation in Israel as a Dual-Purpose Crop for Grain Production and Livestock Feed. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 272, 109534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Park, M.R.; Seo, M.-J.; Yun, H.-T.; Park, C.-H. Analysis of Feed Value and Usability of Soybean Varieties as Livestock Forage. J. Korean Soc. Grassl. Forage Sci. 2017, 37, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hurley, M.; Lewis, E.; Beecher, M.; Garry, B.; Fleming, C.; Boland, T.; Hennessy, D. Dry Matter Intake and In Vivo Digestibility of Grass-Only and Grass-White Clover in Individually Housed Sheep in Spring, Summer and Autumn. Animals 2021, 11, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fekadu, D.; Walelegn, M.; Terefe, G. Indexing Ethiopian Feed Stuffs Using Relative Feed Value: Dry Forages and Roughages, Energy Supplements, and Protein Supplements. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2017, 7, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Chemical composition of damaged crop plants and conventional hays in mg/g dry matter.
Table 1. Chemical composition of damaged crop plants and conventional hays in mg/g dry matter.
DM *CPEENDFADFADLAshNFC
Amaranth160.0 cd105.9 cd14.2 b515.0 c349.1 cd109.4 b153.1 b211.8 b
Borage98.9 e125.5 bc16.9 b345.0 d303.7 d70.7 cd194.1 a318.6 a
Camelina254.2 b100.2 d28.1 a523.0 c434.4 b76.9 cd76.7 d271.4 a
Flax250.2 b117.8 bcd30.0 a684.7 a551.5 a152.2 a57.4 e110.1 c
Quinoa198.0 c150.4 a15.4 b596.0 b401.7 bc65.0 cd162.6 b75.6 c
Soybean199.9 c153.9 a15.3 b662.8 ab425.4 b81.3 bc95.9 c72.1 c
White lupin149.7 d131.4 b26.1 a518.2 c445.1 b87.6 bc102.2 c222.1 b
Ray-grass (hay)865.4 a76.4 e15.8 b618.8 b374.4 bc39.8 d80.8 d208.2 b
Alfalfa (hay)870.0 a164.0 a15.0 b630.8 b399.7 bc52.8 cd78.0 d112.2 c
S.E.M25.3112.792.7026.3235.4017.937.7029.31
p-value0.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.0001
*: dry matter in mg/g fresh matter; a–e: values within the column with different superscripts differ significantly at p-value < 0.05; ADF: acid detergent fiber; ADL: acid detergent lignin; CP: crude protein; DM: dry matter; EE: ether extract; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; NFC: non-fiber carbohydrate.
Table 2. Ruminal in vitro degradability, estimated dry matter intake, and relative feed value of damaged crop plants and conventional hays.
Table 2. Ruminal in vitro degradability, estimated dry matter intake, and relative feed value of damaged crop plants and conventional hays.
DMD (mg/g DM)NDFD (mg/g NDF)DMI (%BW)RFV
Amaranth781.0 b593.9 b2.3 b141.0 b
Borage886.8 a671.0 a3.5 a239.3 a
Camelina650.4 c333.7 d2.3 b115.1 c
Flax549.3 d341.4 d1.8 d74.3 e
Quinoa671.0 c519.2 c2.0 bc103.0 d
Soybean675.0 c502.0 c1.8 cd95.1 d
White lupin765.2 b488.9 c2.3 b136.9 b
Ryegrass (hay)655.4 c518.2 c1.9 c99.0 d
Alfalfa (hay)641.0 c495.4 c1.9 c95.4 d
S.E.M29.5140.100.0910.32
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
a–e: values within the column with different superscripts differ significantly at p-value < 0.05; BW: body weight in kg; DM: dry matter; DMD: dry matter degradability; DMI: estimated dry matter intake; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; NDFD: neutral detergent fiber degradability; RFV: relative feed value; S.E.M: standard errors of the means.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tassone, S.; Barbera, S.; Issaoui, R.; Kaihara, H.; Glorio Patrucco, S.; Abid, K. In Vitro Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Seed Crop Plants Damaged by Hailstorms and Strong Winds as Alternative Forages for Ruminants. Agriculture 2025, 15, 799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080799

AMA Style

Tassone S, Barbera S, Issaoui R, Kaihara H, Glorio Patrucco S, Abid K. In Vitro Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Seed Crop Plants Damaged by Hailstorms and Strong Winds as Alternative Forages for Ruminants. Agriculture. 2025; 15(8):799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080799

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tassone, Sonia, Salvatore Barbera, Rabeb Issaoui, Hatsumi Kaihara, Sara Glorio Patrucco, and Khalil Abid. 2025. "In Vitro Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Seed Crop Plants Damaged by Hailstorms and Strong Winds as Alternative Forages for Ruminants" Agriculture 15, no. 8: 799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080799

APA Style

Tassone, S., Barbera, S., Issaoui, R., Kaihara, H., Glorio Patrucco, S., & Abid, K. (2025). In Vitro Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Seed Crop Plants Damaged by Hailstorms and Strong Winds as Alternative Forages for Ruminants. Agriculture, 15(8), 799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080799

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop