Next Article in Journal
Studies on Distant Hybridization Compatibility between the Azalea (Rhododendron × hybridum hort.) and the Rhododendron decorum Franch. Native to China
Next Article in Special Issue
Cu Concentration in Vegetable-Cultivated Soil: Comparison Between Open Fields and Protected Environments in Brazil
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Plant Growth Regulators on Germination and Seedling Growth of Passiflora alata and Passiflora edulis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Crop Nutrition and Soil Fertility Management in Organic Potato Production Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/horticulturae10101088
horticulturae-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

Applicability Analysis of Peanut Addition to Button Mushroom Substrate Supplement Formulation

by
Cinthia Elen Cardoso Caitano
1,
Wagner Gonçalves Vieira Júnior
1,
Lucas da Silva Alves
1,
Pedro Afonso Gomes Teixeira
1,
Laura Cristina de Paula
2 and
Diego Cunha Zied
2,*
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Microbiologia Agropecuária, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil
2
Departamento de Produção Vegetal, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Tecnológicas, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Dracena 17915-899, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(10), 1088; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101088
Submission received: 11 September 2024 / Revised: 26 September 2024 / Accepted: 27 September 2024 / Published: 11 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Authenticity in Organic Horticultural Production: Recent Studies and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated the agronomic response of Agaricus bisporus strains supplemented with various formulations containing soybean meal and peanut grain residue, which has traces of aflatoxins. Six supplement formulations were developed, starting with 100% soybean meal and no peanuts and gradually increasing peanut inclusion by 10% while proportionally reducing soybean meal until reaching a 50% soybean and 50% peanut ratio. The substrate was produced using the traditional method and supplemented at two points: during inoculation and when adding the cover layer. The strains ABI 22/01 and ABI 22/02 were utilized. After the supplementation and incubation periods in a controlled environment (19 ± 2 °C and 85 ± 5% humidity), the fungus was cultivated. Three production cycles were conducted, evaluating yield, weight, number of mushrooms, biological efficiency, and precocity. The concentrations of aflatoxins in the supplements and mushrooms were determined, along with the nutritional characterization of the substrate and supplements. The inclusion of up to 30% peanuts in the supplement formulation was beneficial for yield, particularly for ABI 22/01. The formulation with 80% soybean meal and 20% peanuts resulted in a 53% yield increase compared to the control. Traces of aflatoxin were found in the supplement but not in the mushrooms.

1. Introduction

Edible mushrooms have been increasingly produced on an industrial scale in recent years [1], driven by the growing global population and the demand for nutritionally rich and healthy foods [2]. Among the cultivated species, Agaricus bisporus stands out as one of the most significant mushrooms, and it is highly valued for its nutritional properties and culinary uses [3]. The cultivation of this fungus requires, initially, the preparation of a composted substrate, followed by pasteurization [4]. This production process involves the use of biomass as a base substrate, which is often composed of agricultural residues such as straw from grasses, rice, wheat, and others. A critical factor in substrate formulation is the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio, which determines the balance of carbon and nitrogen available for the fungus’s development [5].
In this context, substrate supplementation emerges as a technology aimed at providing the fungus with an additional source of nutrients, primarily nitrogen, phosphorus, and other essential micronutrients, thereby promoting optimal conditions for its growth and development. Various approaches to supplementation are available for the cultivation of A. bisporus, including the addition of supplements during compost inoculation and the application of supplements after fungal colonization but before the addition of the casing layer [6,7].
The wide genetic variability among different mushroom strains leads to distinct behaviors, which are influenced by factors such as environmental conditions and the cultivation region [8]. This genetic diversity can affect crucial aspects, such as productivity, disease resistance, harvest time, and mushroom quality, making the selection of the appropriate strain a strategic factor for optimizing the results and adapting cultivation to specific local conditions [8,9,10].
There is a wide variety of commercial supplements available for mushroom production; however, most of these products are costly [11] and present logistical challenges, particularly in regions with low availability and production. In this context, the scientific community has been exploring alternatives for developing supplements using regional by-products that can achieve equivalent or superior results in terms of fungal productivity. Various by-products, such as soybean meal, cottonseed meal, pistachio meal, and bean meal, can be employed as supplements [8,10]. Moreover, the reuse of agricultural waste for supplementation has proven to be a promising technique, promoting the sustainable management of residues [12].
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) is a crop of significant relevance to the food sector and is widely cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions [13]. However, its production generates a considerable amount of agricultural waste [14,15]. Among these residues are the grains, which, when contaminated by fungi, contain aflatoxins—substances toxic to humans—primarily produced by Aspergillus parasiticus and Aspergillus flavus, rendering the grains unsuitable for consumption due to health risks [16]. Conversely, mushrooms possess enzymatic complexes capable of degrading a wide range of molecules [17,18,19,20]. Furthermore, mushrooms require an adequate protein source for their development [21], which can be provided by supplementing these grains. Subsequently, the mushrooms can be utilized for human consumption [22] if they do not contain traces of toxins.
In this context, the objective of this study is to investigate the use of peanut grains contaminated with aflatoxins as a protein source for the supplementation of A. bisporus cultivation. This study aims to evaluate the final quality of the produced mushrooms and ensure their safety for human consumption.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted at the facilities of the Mushroom Studies Center (CECOG) located at the Faculty of Agricultural and Technological Sciences (UNESP), Dracena, SP, Brazil.

2.1. Strains

The Agaricus bisporus strains used are currently deposited in the public culture collection of CECOG under codes ABI 22/01 and ABI 22/02. The inoculum used was produced following the methodology of [8], involving a primary and secondary matrix cultivated on Petri dishes containing a Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) medium followed by propagation in sterilized, autoclaved sorghum grains with the addition of 2% calcite.

2.2. Substrate and Supplements

The substrate was produced by the company Compobras®, which is located in the city of Castro (Paraná—Brazil), following the composting stages, including Phase I, which involved turning for oxygen renewal (18 days), and Phase II (6 days) with pasteurization and conditioning of the substrate. Chemical analysis of the substrate was conducted according to the Manual of Official Analytical Methods for Fertilizers and Amendments, revealing a substrate C/N ratio of 21:1 and a nitrogen content of 2.3%.
The supplements were formulated using peanuts and soybean meal. Six formulations were obtained, denoted by abbreviations representing their composition, with ‘S’ for soybean and ‘P’ for peanut according to the percentage of materials in the composition as follows: 100S with 100% soybean meal, 90S10P with 90% soybean meal and 10% peanut, 80S20P with 80% soybean meal and 20% peanut, 70S30P with 70% soybean meal and 30% peanut, 60S40P with 60% soybean meal and 40% peanut, and finally, formulation 50S50P with 50% soybean meal and 50% peanut. All formulations were supplemented with 2% calcite to adjust the pH. The commercial mushroom supplement Promycel Gold® (Amycel, Ittervoort, The Netherlands) was also used as a treatment.
For the preparation of the supplements, the peanuts were ground in a blender and then sieved to obtain fragments smaller than 3 mm. Disinfection of the formulated supplements was carried out using formaldehyde with a concentration of 6000 ppm, following the methodology of [23]. The supplements were sealed in polypropylene bags together with the formalin solution and, after 24 h, opened for evaporation of the product. The supplements were subjected to analysis according to the Manual of Official Analytical Methods for Fertilizers and Amendments to verify the composition of macro- and micronutrients. Table 1 presents the composition of the substrate and supplements used.

2.3. Cultivation

The inoculation process was conducted in a controlled environment (greenhouse) using a 1% inoculum. Each plastic box (40 × 30 × 30 cm), containing 5 kg of compost, received 50 g of inoculum. A portion of the boxes was supplemented according to the treatment described above, while the remaining boxes received no supplementation. The compost was then incubated for 15 days at 25 ± 2 °C and 85 ± 5% relative humidity. After complete colonization, the experimental units that had not been supplemented during inoculation were supplemented. For this, the compost was fragmented, and the supplement was added and homogenized, after which all experimental units were covered with a casing layer. A covering layer consisting of peat with a thickness of 4cm was added above the compost.
Subsequently, the experimental units continued under the temperature and humidity regime for the colonization of the casing layer. Seven days after applying the casing layer, the primordia induction process began. This involved gradually lowering the temperature from 26 ± 2 °C to 19 ± 2 °C, with a reduction of one degree per day. The humidity was kept constant at 85 ± 5%.

2.4. Analyses of Aflatoxins

Formulated supplements with any percentage of peanuts and the resulting mushrooms from cultivation with these supplements were analyzed for aflatoxins. The samples were dried and ground. Supplement samples were collected prior to mixing with compost and mushrooms during the first and second flushes.
An adapted methodology from Kamal et al. [24] was used for the analysis, conducted in collaboration with Cooperativa Casul (Junqueirópolis, SP, Brazil). The Aflatest kit was utilized for the analysis, which consists of affinity columns and a revealing solution for reading in a fluorometer.
The materials were homogenized in a blender with deionized water, methanol, and sodium chloride. They were filtered, and the content was diluted in a 1:1 ratio. The liquid was subjected to a second vacuum filtration before passing through the affinity column. The obtained content was supplemented with 1ml of the revealing solution and read in a VICAM Series-4 Fluorometer.

2.5. Variables Analyzed

The mushrooms were harvested over three production flushes at their optimal harvest point, just before the veil ruptured. Based on the data for mushroom mass and quantity, the values for average mass, mushroom count, yield, biological efficiency, and precocity were determined [25].
Yield was calculated by dividing the weight of the harvested mushrooms by the fresh weight of the substrate and multiplying by 100 to obtain the result in percentage. Biological efficiency was calculated by dividing the weight of the harvested mushrooms by the dry weight of the substrate and multiplying by 100 to obtain the result in percentage. The average weight of the mushrooms is calculated by dividing the weight of the mushrooms by the number of mushrooms harvested. Precocity was obtained by separating the harvesting time into two equal periods and dividing the harvested mass of the period by the total harvested weight. The number of mushrooms was determined by counting the mushrooms during cultivation.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Two experiments were conducted with two different strains. The experiments were carried out in a double factorial design (supplement vs. supplementation time), totaling 16 treatments each with 5 repetitions per treatment. The repetitions consisted of boxes with 5 kg of substrate for the cultivation of button mushrooms. The obtained data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Scott–Knott mean comparison test at 5% probability using SISVAR 5.6 software [26].
A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted between the composition parameters of the supplements and the production parameters of the cultivation. The PCA was performed using R software version 4.3.3 (Auckland, New Zealand) [27].

3. Results

For the productivity data of strain ABI 22/01 (Figure 1), the best supplements were those with up to 30% peanut in the supplement composition (100S, 90S10P, 80S20P, and 70S30P) and Promycel added at the time of inoculation. This was also observed in the second and third harvesting cycles.
Supplement 80S20P, which showed the highest productivity result (31%), also performed better in each cycle whenever added to the substrate at the time of inoculation. When added to the substrate after its colonization, the supplements did not show any statistically significant differences in yield within each individual flush. However, when considering the total productivity (sum of all flushes), it was found that supplements 90s10p, 70s30p, and 50s50p stood out with higher average yields.
The data on the average weight and number of mushrooms (Table 2) showed differences between application times only for the 80S20P supplement, with greater weight mushrooms observed when the supplement was added at the time of applying the casing layer. Among the supplements, greater weight mushrooms were seen with 60S40P, 50S50P, and Promycel Gold® when added during inoculation, which also resulted in fewer mushrooms (10.28 g, 11.75g, and 10.02g, and 83, 90.4, and 120.4 mushrooms, respectively). The precocity of the ABI 22/01 strain showed no statistical differences for any of the factors evaluated.
The productivity of strain ABI 22/02 (Figure 2) was only affected by supplementation in the second cycle, where supplements 70S30P, 60S40P, and Promycel added at the time of inoculation, as well as the control, stood out (5.41%, 4.82%, 7.55%, and 5.38%, respectively). When supplemented together with the covering layer, this strain was more responsive, with all treatments performing better than the control, except for supplement 90S10P.
The ABI 22/02 strain demonstrated a positive response to supplementation, as observed in the analysis of the average mushroom mass (Table 3). Specifically, the 90S10P supplement formulation, applied at the time of inoculation, resulted in an average mushroom mass of 23.58 g, indicating superior efficacy compared to other supplementation practices. Additionally, the addition of the supplement at the time of inoculation also positively influenced the earliness of cultivation, leading to faster mushroom development. These findings suggest that synchronizing supplementation with the inoculation process may be a crucial factor in maximizing productive performance, optimizing not only the mushroom mass but also accelerating the time to harvest. Such practice can be particularly useful in commercial operations, where production time and uniformity of the final product are critical factors.
The results of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that Principal Component 1 (PC1) accounted for the majority of the variation in the data, totaling 53.65% of the total variance. Principal Component 2 (PC2) represented 24.97%, thus raising the representativeness of the analysis to 78.62% (Figure 3). The correlation between the principal components and the analyzed variables showed that PC1 was influenced by the nutritional data of the supplements, while PC2 was influenced by the agronomic data.
The Principal Component Analysis allowed the categorization of treatments into three distinct groups for each evaluated strain. The first grouping, related to strain ABI 22/01, was primarily influenced by productivity and the number of mushrooms. This group included supplements 100S, 90S10P, 80S20P, and 70S30P, which were added at the time of inoculation, as well as supplements 90S10P and 70S30P, which were incorporated during the application of the substrate covering layer. The second group is more associated with the C/N ratio of the supplements and the average mushroom mass. This grouping encompassed supplements 60S40P and 50S50P, which were added at the time of inoculation, and supplements 100S, 80S20P, 60S40P, and 50S50P, which were applied during the addition of the substrate covering layer.
Lastly, the third group was composed of the Promycel supplement, in both application times, which was primarily influenced by nitrogen, zinc, and sulfur content.
For the ABI 22/02 strain, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) explained 80.69% of the total variation observed in the data. The First Principal Component (PC1) accounted for 57.58% of the variation, while the Second Principal Component (PC2) represented 23.11% (Figure 4). These results indicate that the majority of the variability in the data can be attributed to the first two principal components, providing a detailed insight into the main factors influencing the characteristics of the ABI 22/02 strain.
The treatments were also grouped into three groups. The first group, composed of supplement 90S10P at both application times, was particularly influenced by the average mushroom mass and calcium content in the supplement. The second group, characterized by the presence of the Promycel supplement at both application times, was influenced by the levels of zinc, sulfur, and nitrogen in the supplements used. Finally, the third group encompassed the remaining treatments that were shown to be influenced by nutrients and productivity.
All materials analyzed for aflatoxins achieved values lower than those accepted in Brazil by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA): 16 of 20ppb. These data infer that the aflatoxin was either eliminated from the medium or not accumulated by the mushroom (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Although supplementation techniques are widely used in several countries, Brazilian mushroom growers do not find alternatives in the local market for implementing this practice. Therefore, it is necessary to import commercial supplements used abroad.
Supplements can provide proteins, lipids, carboxylic acids, and minerals, each acting specifically in cultivation [6]. Soybean is one of the most studied materials as a protein source for mushroom cultivation [7,28]. One of the reasons for this is the high production and availability, especially in North and South America, which contains the three main producers of this legume: Brazil, the United States, and Argentina [29], but this extends worldwide. In Brazil, a variety of products are used for mushroom supplementation; however, due to the country’s vast territorial extent, the availability and utilization of each material may be limited. Among the available resources are peanut residues, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, corn meal [30], commercial supplements [11], acerola residues, and specialty grains [8], among others.
However, soybean is widely used in other areas, such as animal feed production and human consumption. Considering this perspective, peanuts stand out as a rich source of lipids, comprising, on average, about 49% of their composition [31]. This characteristic positions it as a valuable option for supplementing cultivation substrates, expanding the range of choices, and contributing to efficiency and cost savings in the mushroom cultivation process. Thus, it was possible to achieve similar productivity levels by adding peanuts to the supplement formulation, with proportions of up to 30%. Previous studies, such as the one conducted by [8], demonstrated the significant potential of this oilseed in the production of Pleurotus ostreatus mushrooms. In their research, supplementation with 80% peanut grains resulted in a 32% increase in productivity compared to the control group. These results indicate that peanuts can be an effective source of nutrients in mushroom cultivation, enhancing crop yields without compromising the quality of the final product.
Studies related to A. bisporus report productivities ranging, on average, from 15% to 23% [32,33]. This variation can be attributed to a series of factors, including genetic differences in the strains used, an inadequate substrate [34,35,36], and the nutritional properties of the substrate employed [37]. Such factors play a crucial role in explaining the diversity of productivities obtained in this study, which ranged from 8.55% to 20.5% for the ABI 22/02 strain and from 16.04% to 31% for the ABI 22/01 strain. This wide range of productivity demonstrates the complexity of A. bisporus cultivation and the importance of considering various aspects to optimize performance in production.
Although some numerical variations were observed, particularly in total productivity, supplementation with the ABI 22/02 strain did not produce results that justified the use of this practice. The data indicate that this strain does not respond positively to the added supplements, resulting in no significant increase in production. On the other hand, the ABI 22/01 strain demonstrated a substantial increase in productivity, achieving up to a 53% increment when subjected to the same supplementation practice. Therefore, the choice of strain is a critical factor in optimizing productivity in commercial mushroom cultivation, making it essential to consider the genetic responsiveness of strains to management interventions, such as nutritional supplementation.
The inverse relationship between the average mushroom mass and the number of mushrooms has been documented in previous studies [29,38], and this relationship was also evident in the present study, particularly in the context of the ABI 22/01 strain. This study found that when the treatments resulted in larger mushrooms, there was a corresponding reduction in the number of mushrooms produced, while the opposite also occurred; an increase in the quantity of mushrooms was observed when the average mushroom mass decreased, reflecting the interdependence of these two variables.
In general, larger mushrooms (in terms of weight) tend to be more acceptable to producers, primarily due to the reduced demand for labor. Harvesting a smaller number of units is quicker, resulting in lower labor costs, which are one of the main components of production costs [39]. However, this preference may vary according to the intended use of the mushrooms; for example, mushrooms destined for preservation are preferably smaller [40,41].
Aflatoxins are present in various foods, such as peanuts, powdered milk, and cereals, such as corn [42]. Kamal et al. [24] found aflatoxin levels in canned mushrooms of the genus Agaricus; however, fresh mushrooms were free from toxins. White rot fungi can even be allies in the degradation of aflatoxins. In studies conducted by Branà et al. [43,44], the degradation of aflatoxins by mycelium of Pleurotus eryngii in liquid and solid media and by laccase and Mn-peroxidase enzymes isolated from an exhausted mushroom substrate was higher than 90%.
It is important to emphasize that mushroom production requires an integrated approach, involving not only nutrients, centesimal elements, and substrate microbiota but also the covering layer. Fat, protein, and carbohydrates present in the substrate reflect on the quality of the mushrooms produced and productivity [10,33]; these elements can be increased through supplementation. The microbiological factors of the compost can be related to productivity, disease control, and other factors [45,46].
The application of the supplementation technique is directly related to increased yields, particularly concerning the control treatment of this study. Furthermore, financial factors must be considered prior to the implementation of this technique, assessing whether the increase in productivity is sufficient to cover the costs of supplement production and operational expenses, including potential investments in infrastructure and increased labor.

5. Conclusions

The incorporation of peanuts into the supplement formulation for Agaricus bisporus cultivation can increase productivity by up to 53%, depending on the strain’s responsiveness to supplementation. The greatest efficacy is observed when combined with the inoculation practice, without the need to alter the cultivation process. The nutrients in the supplements, such as lipids and proteins, have a limited direct contribution to the harvest outcomes. This effect may be related to the composition and balance of macronutrients and micronutrients, which influence absorption and metabolism by the mycelium. Further studies are needed to better understand these interactions and optimize supplement formulations to maximize productive efficiency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.C.Z.; data curation, C.E.C.C.; formal analysis, C.E.C.C.; investigation, C.E.C.C., W.G.V.J., L.d.S.A., P.A.G.T. and L.C.d.P.; methodology, C.E.C.C. and D.C.Z.; resources, D.C.Z.; software, C.E.C.C. and W.G.V.J.; supervision, D.C.Z.; visualization, D.C.Z.; writing—original draft, C.E.C.C.; writing—review and editing, W.G.V.J. and D.C.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Funding Code 001 and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (grant number 2020/13230-8).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dedousi, M.; Melanouri, E.-M.; Karayannis, D.; Kaminarides, E.-I.; Diamantopoulou, P. Utilização de Substratos Usados e Resíduos Do Cultivo de Cogumelos Para Produzir Novas Culturas de Pleurotus ostreatus, Pleurotus eryngii e Agaricus bisporus. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2024, 7, 100196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Usman, M.; Murtaza, G.; Ditta, A. Nutritional, Medicinal, and Cosmetic Value of Bioactive Compounds in Button Mushroom (Agaricus bisporus): A Review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wasser, S.P.; Akavia, E. Regulatory issues of mushrooms as functional foods and dietary supplements: Safety and efficacy. In Mushrooms as Functional Foods; Cheung, P.C.K., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 199–226. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pardo-Gimenez, A.; Pardo-Gonzalez, J.E.; Cunha-Zied, D. Supplementation of High Nitrogen Agaricus Compost: Yield and Mushroom Quality. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 19, 1589–1601. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buth, J. Compost as a Food Base for Agaricus bisporus. In Edible and Medicinal Mushrooms; Zied, D.C., Pardo-Giménez, A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 129–147. [Google Scholar]
  6. Burton, K.; Noble, R.; Rogers, S.; Wilson, J. Understanding Mushroom Nutri-Tion: Project Aimed at Improving Yield, Substrate Efficiency and Utilisation and Flavor; M056 Final Report; Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board: Warwickshire, UK, 2015; 54p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carrasco, J.; Zied, D.C.; Pardo, J.E.; Preston, G.M.; Pardo-Giménez, A. Supplementation in Mushroom Crops and Its Impact on Yield and Quality. AMB Express 2018, 8, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zied, D.C.; Caitano, C.E.C.; Pardo-Gimenez, A.; Dias, E.S.; Zeraik, M.L.; Pardo, J.E. Using of Appropriated Strains in the Practice of Compost Supplementation for Agaricus subrufescens Production. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Santos, R.C.; Freire, R.M.M.; de Lima, L.M. O Agronegócio Do Amendoim No Brasil, 2nd ed.; Bases de Dados da Pesquisa Agropecuária: Brasilia, Brazil, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pardo-Giménez, A.; Catalán, L.; Carrasco, J.; Álvarez-Ortí, M.; Zied, D.; Pardo, J. Effect of Supplementing Crop Substrate with Defatted Pistachio Meal on Agaricus bisporus and Pleurotus ostreatus Production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 3838–3845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ferrari, A.B.S.; Azevedo de Oliveira, G.; Mannochio Russo, H.; de Carvalho Bertozo, L.; da Silva Bolzani, V.; Zied, D.C.; Farias Ximenes, V.; Zeraik, M.L. Pleurotus ostreatus and Agaricus subrufescens: Investigation of Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Properties of These Mushrooms Cultivated with Different Handmade and Commercial Supplements. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Otieno, O.D.; Mulaa, F.J.; Obiero, G.; Midiwo, J. Utilization of Fruit Waste Substrates in Mushroom Production and Manipulation of Chemical Composition. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2022, 39, 102250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Putra, N.R.; Rizkiyah, D.N.; Che Yunus, M.A.; Abdul Aziz, A.H.; Md Yasir, A.S.H.; Irianto, I.; Jumakir, J.; Waluyo, W.; Suparwoto, S.; Qomariyah, L. Valorization of Peanut Skin as Agricultural Waste Using Various Extraction Methods: A Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 4325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mohammadi Torkashvand, A.; Alidoust, M.; Mahboub Khomami, A. The Reuse of Peanut Organic Wastes as a Growth Medium for Ornamental Plants. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2015, 4, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhao, X.; Chen, J.; Du, F. Potential Use of Peanut By-Products in Food Processing: A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Eskola, M.; Kos, G.; Elliott, C.T.; Hajšlová, J.; Mayar, S.; Krska, R. Worldwide Contamination of Food-Crops with Mycotoxins: Validity of the Widely Cited ‘FAO Estimate’ of 25%. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2773–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Agrawal, N.; Verma, P.; Shahi, S.K. Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Phenanthrene and Pyrene) by the Ligninolytic Fungi Ganoderma lucidum Isolated from the Hardwood Stump. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bankole, P.O.; Adekunle, A.A.; Jeon, B.-H.; Govindwar, S.P. Novel Cobiomass Degradation of NSAIDs by Two Wood Rot Fungi, Ganoderma applanatum and Laetiporus sulphureus: Ligninolytic Enzymes Induction, Isotherm and Kinetic Studies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 203, 110997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hanafiah, Z.M.; Wan Mohtar, W.H.M.; Hasan, H.A.; Jensen, H.S.; Klaus, A.; Sharil, S.; Wan-Mohtar, W.A.A.Q.I. Ability of Ganoderma lucidum Mycelial Pellets to Remove Ammonia and Organic Matter from Domestic Wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 7307–7320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yadav, A.; Rene, E.R.; Kanti Mandal, M.; Kumar Dubey, K. Biodegradation of Cyclophosphamide and Etoposide by White Rot Fungi and Their Degradation Kinetics. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Noble, R.; Thai, M.; Kertesz, M.A. Nitrogen Balance and Supply in Australasian Mushroom Composts. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 108, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hong, J.Y.; Kim, M.K.; Yang, N. Mushroom Consumption and Cardiometabolic Health Outcomes in the General Population: A Systematic Review. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2024, 18, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pardo-Giménez, A.; Zied, D.C.; Álvarez-Ortí, M.; Rubio, M.; Pardo, J.E. Effect of Supplementing Compost with Grapeseed Meal on Production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1665–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kamal, A.; Khair, A.; Dawlatana, M.; Hassan, M.; Begum, F.; Rahim, M. Evaluation of Aflatoxins and Pesticide Residues in Fresh and Different Processed Mushrooms. Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2009, 44, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pardo-Giménez, A.; Pardo-González, J.E.; Zied, D.C. Evaluation of Harvested Mushrooms and Viability of Agaricus bisporus Growth Using Casing Materials Made from Spent Mushroom Substrate. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 787–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ferreira, D.F. SISVAR: Um Programa Para Análises e Ensino de Estatística. Rev. Cient. Symp. 2008, 6, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
  27. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  28. El-Shemy, H. Soybean and Nutrition, 1st ed.IntechOpen: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations. FAO Data Base. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/world-agricultural-production (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  30. Zied, D.C.; Prado, E.P.; Dias, E.S.; Pardo, J.E.; Pardo-Gimenez, A. Use of Peanut Waste for Oyster Mushroom Substrate Supplementation—Oyster Mushroom and Peanut Waste. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 1021–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Davis, J.P.; Dean, L.L. Peanut composition, flavor and nutrition. In Peanuts; Stalker, H.T., Wilson, R.F., Eds.; AOCS Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 289–345. [Google Scholar]
  32. Caitano, C.E.C.; Iossi, M.R.; Pardo-Giménez, A.; Vieira Júnior, W.G.; Dias, E.S.; Zied, D.C. Design of a Useful Diagrammatic Scale for the Quantification of Lecanicillium fungicola Disease in Agaricus bisporus Cultivation. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 4037–4044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zied, D.C.; Nunes, J.S.; Nicolini, V.F.; Gimenez, A.P.; Rinker, D.L.; Dias, E.S. Tolerance to Lecanicillium fungicola and Yield of Agaricus bisporus Strains Used in Brazil. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 190, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Harfi, T.; Alireza, M.-A.; Farzad, R.; Fariborz, Z.-N. Induced Mutation in Agaricus bisporus by Gamma Ray to Improve Genetic Variability, Degradation Enzyme Activity, and Yield. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2021, 97, 1020–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Foulongne-Oriol, M.; Rodier, A.; Rousseau, T.; Savoie, J.-M. Quantitative Trait Locus Mapping of Yield-Related Components and Oligogenic Control of the Cap Color of the Button Mushroom, Agaricus bisporus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 2422–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zied, D.C.; Pardo, J.E.; Noble, R.; Pardo-Giménez, A. Efficiency of Mushrooms for Food Production—Fundamental Strategic Decision-Making. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 125, 105734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Q.; Xiao, T.; Juan, J.; Qian, W.; Zhang, J.; Chen, H.; Shen, X.; Huang, J. Lignocellulose Degradation Efficiency of Agaricus bisporus Strains Grown on Wheat Straw-Based Compost. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 10607–10615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kaur, M.; Kaur, S.; Devi, R.; Kapoor, S. Wheat Straw and Maize Stalks Based Compost for Cultivation of Agaricus bisporus. Pharma Innov. J. 2019, 8, 393–397. [Google Scholar]
  39. Li, C.; Xu, S. Edible Mushroom Industry in China: Current State and Perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 3949–3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Dawadi, E.; Magar, P.B.; Bhandari, S.; Subedi, S.; Shrestha, S.; Shrestha, J. Nutritional and Post-Harvest Quality Preservation of Mushrooms: A Review. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Verma, A.K.; Shivani, P.C.S.; Kumar, M.; Rani, N. Processing of Mushrooms: A Viable Option to Sustain the Growing Population of the Developing Countries. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2020, 8, 1416–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kwiatkowski, A.; Alves, A.P.F. Importância da detecção e do controle de aflatoxinas em alimentos. SaBios 2007, 2, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  43. Branà, M.T.; Cimmarusti, M.T.; Haidukowski, M.; Logrieco, A.F.; Altomare, C. Bioremediation of Aflatoxin B1-Contaminated Maize by King Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Branà, M.T.; Sergio, L.; Haidukowski, M.; Logrieco, A.F.; Altomare, C. Degradation of Aflatoxin B1 by a Sustainable Enzymatic Extract from Spent Mushroom Substrate of Pleurotus eryngii. Toxins 2020, 12, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Suwannarach, N.; Kumla, J.; Zhao, Y.; Kakumyan, P. Impact of Cultivation Substrate and Microbial Community on Improving Mushroom Productivity: A Review. Biology 2022, 11, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carrasco, J.; Tello, M.L.; de Toro, M.; Tkacz, A.; Poole, P.; Pérez-Clavijo, M.; Preston, G. Casing Microbiome Dynamics during Button Mushroom Cultivation: Implications for Dry and Wet Bubble Diseases. Microbiology 2019, 165, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 10 01088 g001
Figure 1. Productivity of strain ABI 22/01 in the first, second, third flow, and total supplemented at inoculation and casing. Different lowercase letters within the same flow indicate a difference between the supplements according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between the moments of supplement application according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. The absence of letters indicates no statistical difference.
Figure 1. Productivity of strain ABI 22/01 in the first, second, third flow, and total supplemented at inoculation and casing. Different lowercase letters within the same flow indicate a difference between the supplements according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between the moments of supplement application according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. The absence of letters indicates no statistical difference.
Horticulturae 10 01088 g001
Horticulturae 10 01088 g002
Figure 2. Productivity of strain ABI 22/02 in the first, second, third flow, and total supplemented at the moment of inoculation and at the moment of adding the covering layer. Different lowercase letters within the same flow indicate a difference between the supplements according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between the moments of supplement application according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. The absence of letters indicates no statistical difference.
Figure 2. Productivity of strain ABI 22/02 in the first, second, third flow, and total supplemented at the moment of inoculation and at the moment of adding the covering layer. Different lowercase letters within the same flow indicate a difference between the supplements according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between the moments of supplement application according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. The absence of letters indicates no statistical difference.
Horticulturae 10 01088 g002
Horticulturae 10 01088 g003
Figure 3. PCA biplot of the productivity parameters of strain ABI 22/01 and nutrient content of the supplements added at the time of inoculation and at the time of addition of the covering layer. The geometric shapes represent the clusters formed by the analysis.
Figure 3. PCA biplot of the productivity parameters of strain ABI 22/01 and nutrient content of the supplements added at the time of inoculation and at the time of addition of the covering layer. The geometric shapes represent the clusters formed by the analysis.
Horticulturae 10 01088 g003
Horticulturae 10 01088 g004
Figure 4. PCA biplot of the productive parameters of strain ABI 22/02 and nutrient content of supplements added at inoculation and at the addition of the cover layer. The geometric shapes represent the clusters formed by the analysis.
Figure 4. PCA biplot of the productive parameters of strain ABI 22/02 and nutrient content of supplements added at inoculation and at the addition of the cover layer. The geometric shapes represent the clusters formed by the analysis.
Horticulturae 10 01088 g004
Table 1. Chemical analysis of the substrate and supplements for the production of Agaricus bisporus.
Table 1. Chemical analysis of the substrate and supplements for the production of Agaricus bisporus.
MaterialsNP2O5K2OCaMgSM.O.Rel. C/NNaCuFeMnZnpH
% (Natural) mg/kg (Natural)Natural
Substrate2.340.912.883.610.440.868921/1189912019081371187.3
Supplements
100s5.60.9820.70.40.26671001116327406
90s10p5.71.142.40.80.50.2807124918425416.6
80s20p5.50.961.90.70.40.1767105843225376.2
70s30p6.11.052.10.70.40.1837109947525376
60s40p5.60.861.80.60.30867110720022386
50s50p5.70.961.90.70.40.1868110720022396.1
Promycel6.80.341.40.60.20.3876na1119718675.7
The letters S and P in the supplement nomenclature indicate soybean and peanut, respectively. The numbers next to each letter represent the percentage of each product in the supplement formulation.
Table 2. Biological efficiency (%), number of mushrooms (unit), average mushroom weight (g), and precocity (%) of the ABI 22/01 strain supplemented at the time of inoculation and the time of addition of the covering layer.
Table 2. Biological efficiency (%), number of mushrooms (unit), average mushroom weight (g), and precocity (%) of the ABI 22/01 strain supplemented at the time of inoculation and the time of addition of the covering layer.
Time of ApplicationSupplement
100S90S10P *80S20P70S30P60S40P50S50PPromycelControl
Biological Efficiency, %
At inoculation85.15 ± 9.76 Aa82.19 ± 13.02 a95.09 ± 6.84 Aa86.36 ± 4.80 a49.20 ± 18.36 b62.34 ± 6.68 b72.60 ± 18.84 a61.92 ± 16.22 b
At casing60.56 ± 16.61 Bb77.58 ± 20.24 a58.82 ± 17.73 Bb79.85 ± 18.57 a63.03 ± 9.22 b74.02 ± 8.88 a64.34 ± 12.67 b61.92 ± 16.22b
Weight of mushrooms, g
At inoculation8.59 ± 1.32 b9.15 ± 1.08 b7.44 ± 1.17 Ab7.73 ± 0.99 b10.28 ± 1.86 a11.75 ± 2.90 a10.02 ± 1.07 a7.82 ± 1.46 b
At casing10.95 ± 2.49 b9.40 ± 1.35 b14.36 ± 3.92 Ba9.68 ± 1.68 b10.90 ± 1.54 b10.23 ± 1.39 b10.92 ± 1.64 b7.82 ± 1.46 b
Number of mushrooms, un
At inoculation166.8 ± 44.64 Aa147.8 ± 29.26 a213 ± 42.63 Aa184 ± 23.20 a83 ± 44.05 b90.4 ± 32.28 b120.4 ± 40.43 b129.6 ± 24.18 b
At casing99.6 ± 52.79 Bb138.4 ± 47.20 a70 ± 22.04 Bb141.2 ± 54.81 a97.6 ± 30.98 b120.8 ± 29.28 a98.8 ± 27.95 b129.6 ± 24.18 a
Precocity, %
At inoculation69.51 ± 9.6872.93 ± 17.0170.05 ± 14.5777.8 ± 8.1689 ± 8.9978.51 ± 11.1686.53 ± 6.2080.18 ± 15.03
At casing75.96 ± 15.7284.52 ± 10.4179.65 ± 11.9687.27 ± 7.9786.49 ± 3.8978.08 ± 6.0091.49 ± 8.8880.18 ± 15.03
Averages ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate a difference between the supplements according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at a 5% probability level. Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between the application moments of the supplementation according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at a 5% probability level. The absence of letters indicates no statistical difference. * The letters S and P in the supplement nomenclature indicate soybean and peanut, respectively. The numbers next to each letter represent the percentage of each product in the supplement formulation.
Table 3. Biological efficiency (%), number of mushrooms (unit), average mushroom weight (g), and precocity (%) of the ABI 22/02 strain supplemented at the time of inoculation and at the time of addition of the covering layer.
Table 3. Biological efficiency (%), number of mushrooms (unit), average mushroom weight (g), and precocity (%) of the ABI 22/02 strain supplemented at the time of inoculation and at the time of addition of the covering layer.
Time of ApplicationSupplement
100S90S10P *80S20P70S30P60S40P50S50PPromycelControl
Biological Efficiency, %
At inoculation44.63 ± 18.6126.24 ± 14.5948 ± 21.1359.9 ± 16.2753.23 ± 22.0342.74 ± 20.6362.88 ± 24.0352.3 ± 14.40
At casing63.39 ± 11.8742.66 ± 27.6259.1 ± 16.4955.88 ± 16.5869.89 ± 27.9853.63 ± 21.9552.05 ± 24.6552.3 ± 14.40
Weight of mushrooms, g
At inoculation13.25 ± 1.67 b23.58 ± 14.47 Aa12.77 ± 2.36 b12.12 ± 2.51 b12.87 ± 0.68 b16.79 ± 5.30b13.67 ± 3.98b15.63 ± 3.25 b
At casing14.7 ± 2.9215.37 ± 3.97 B16.16 ± 5.1815.96 ± 2.2913.48 ± 2.1714.46 ± 2.3711.35 ± 1.0715.63 ± 3.25
Number of mushrooms, un
At inoculation57.4 ± 26.2834.2 ± 13.1468.6 ± 40.8285.8 ± 33.7068.4 ± 30.2460 ± 33.4984.4 ± 44.9354.4 ± 29.58
At casing73.2 ± 23.3057.6 ± 45.0964.6 ± 27.9661.4 ± 26.9691.8 ± 54.0964 ± 35.6477.2 ± 35.6454.4 ± 29.58
Precocity, %
At inoculation61.51 ± 22.06Aa39.54 ± 31.08 Ba54.72 ± 33.51 Aa47.02 ± 16.51 a53.94 ± 11.54 Aa20.12 ± 36.68 b23.39 ± 11.96 b43.99 ± 18.49 a
At casing27.44 ± 22.38 Bc68.33 ± 12.23 Aa20.26 ± 9.66 Bc28.84 ± 5.35 c28.76 ± 4.04 Bc26.51 ± 19.04 c16.87 ± 12.28 c43.99 ± 18.49 b
Averages ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters in the same line indicate a difference between the supplements according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between the moments of supplement application according to the Scott–Knott statistical test at 5% probability. The absence of letters indicates no statistical difference. * The letters S and P in the nomenclature of the supplements indicate soybean and peanut, respectively. The numbers next to each letter represent the percentage of each product in the supplement formulation.
Table 4. Aflatoxin content (ppb) is presented in the supplements and the cultivated mushrooms.
Table 4. Aflatoxin content (ppb) is presented in the supplements and the cultivated mushrooms.
FormulationSupplementMushroom (Supplementation during Inoculation)Mushroom (Supplementation in the Casing Layer)
90S10P1.50ND *ND
80S20P2.00NDND
70S30P2.00NDND
60S40P1.50NDND
50S50P1.20NDND
* ND = Not Detected.
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

Caitano, C.E.C.; Vieira Júnior, W.G.; Alves, L.d.S.; Teixeira, P.A.G.; de Paula, L.C.; Zied, D.C. Applicability Analysis of Peanut Addition to Button Mushroom Substrate Supplement Formulation. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1088. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101088

AMA Style

Caitano CEC, Vieira Júnior WG, Alves LdS, Teixeira PAG, de Paula LC, Zied DC. Applicability Analysis of Peanut Addition to Button Mushroom Substrate Supplement Formulation. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(10):1088. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101088

Chicago/Turabian Style

Caitano, Cinthia Elen Cardoso, Wagner Gonçalves Vieira Júnior, Lucas da Silva Alves, Pedro Afonso Gomes Teixeira, Laura Cristina de Paula, and Diego Cunha Zied. 2024. "Applicability Analysis of Peanut Addition to Button Mushroom Substrate Supplement Formulation" Horticulturae 10, no. 10: 1088. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101088

APA Style

Caitano, C. E. C., Vieira Júnior, W. G., Alves, L. d. S., Teixeira, P. A. G., de Paula, L. C., & Zied, D. C. (2024). Applicability Analysis of Peanut Addition to Button Mushroom Substrate Supplement Formulation. Horticulturae, 10(10), 1088. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101088

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