| Literature DB >> 35053921 |
Claudio Cacace1, Carlo Giuseppe Rizzello2, Gennaro Brunetti1, Michela Verni1, Claudio Cocozza1.
Abstract
In an era characterized by land degradation, climate change, and a growing population, ensuring high-yield productions with limited resources is of utmost importance. In this context, the use of novel soil amendments and the exploitation of plant growth-promoting microorganisms potential are considered promising tools for developing a more sustainable primary production. This study aimed at investigating the potential of bread, which represents a large portion of the global food waste, to be used as an organic soil amendment. A bioprocessed wasted bread, obtained by an enzymatic treatment coupled with fermentation, together with unprocessed wasted bread were used as amendments in a pot trial. An integrated analytical plan aimed at assessing (i) the modification of the physicochemical properties of a typical Mediterranean alkaline agricultural soil, and (ii) the plant growth-promoting effect on escarole (Cichorium endivia var. Cuartana), used as indicator crop, was carried out. Compared to the unamended soils, the use of biomasses raised the soil organic carbon content (up to 37%) and total nitrogen content (up to 40%). Moreover, the lower pH and the higher organic acid content, especially in bioprocessed wasted bread, determined a major availability of Mn, Fe, and Cu in amended soils. The escaroles from pots amended with raw and bioprocessed bread had a number of leaves, 1.7- and 1.4-fold higher than plants cultivated on unamended pots, respectively, showing no apparent phytotoxicity and thus confirming the possible re-utilization of such residual biomasses as agriculture amendments.Entities:
Keywords: bioprocessing; lactic acid bacteria; soil amendment; wasted bread
Year: 2022 PMID: 35053921 PMCID: PMC8774946 DOI: 10.3390/foods11020189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Chemical and physicochemical characteristics of the amendment. WB wasted bread; bWB, bioprocessed wasted bread (treated with amylase and fermented with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum H64).
| Samples | Moisture | Ash | EC | OC | TN | C/N | Total P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WB | 61.81 ± 6 | 0.73 ± 0.05 | 1950 ± 50 a | 40.7 ± 1 b | 2.47 ± 0.04 a | 16.4 ± 0.07 b | 1716 ± 246 |
| bWB | 65.04 ± 5 | 0.86 ± 0.06 | 1820 ± 60 b | 43.7 ± 2 a | 2.25 ± 0.02 b | 19.4 ± 0.03 a | 2150 ± 15 |
| ns | ns | * | * | * | ** | ns ¥ |
Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n = 3). a–b Values in the same column followed by a different letter are significantly different according to the HSD test or Dunn test (¥). * Significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01, ns: not significant.
Chemical and physicochemical properties of cultivated (P) and uncultivated (A) pots. CT, control soil; WB, soil amended with wasted bread; bWB; soil amended with bioprocessed wasted bread (treated with amylase and fermented with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum H64).
| Samples | pHH2O | pHKCl | EC | OC | TN | Pava |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
| 8.20 ± 0.15 a | 7.20 ± 0.08 | 200 ± 7 b | 16.0 ± 0.45 b | 1.60 ± 0.10 bc | 45.5 ± 1.0 ab |
|
| 8.20 ± 0.08 a | 7.30 ± 0.08 | 319 ± 57 b | 15.2 ±0.51 b | 1.5 ± 0.07 c | 46.9 ± 1.9 a |
|
| 7.70 ± 0.07 b | 7.30 ± 0.04 | 805 ± 109 a | 20.3 ± 1.47 a | 2.1 ± 0.18 a | 37.3 ± 2.5 bc |
|
| 7.70 ± 0.07 b | 7.20 ± 0.02 | 764 ± 22 a | 20.8 ± 0.23 a | 1.9 ± 0.12 ab | 36.1 ± 2.0 c |
| *** | ns | *** | *** | ** | ** | |
|
| ||||||
|
| 8.20 ± 0.15 a | 7,20 ± 0.08 | 200 ± 7 c | 16 ± 0.45 b | 1.60 ± 0.10 bc | 45.5 ± 1.0 |
|
| 8.07 ± 0.05 a | 7.25 ± 0.01 | 417 ± 103 b | 17.5 ± 0.49 b | 1.31 ± 0.26 c | 46.1 ± 2.2 |
|
| 7.67 ± 0.09 b | 7.25 ± 0.11 | 685 ± 109 a | 22.4 ± 1.23 a | 1.96 ±0.11 ab | 48 ± 7.9 |
|
| 7.57 ± 0.01 b | 7.23 ± 0.07 | 786 ± 56 a | 22.4 ± 0.83 a | 2.17 ± 0.16 a | 41.9 ± 1.8 |
| *** | ns | *** | *** | ** | ns ¥ | |
Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n = 3). a–c Values in the same column, among cultivated or uncultivated pots data group, followed by a different letter are significantly different according to HSD test or Dunn test (¥). ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01; *** Significant at p ≤ 0.001; ns: not significant.
Soil availability of selected micronutrients (mg kg−1) in cultivated (P) and uncultivated (A) pots. CT, control soil; WB, soil amended with wasted bread; bWB; soil amended with bioprocessed wasted bread (treated with amylase and fermented with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum H64).
| Samples | Mn | Fe | Cu |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 8.06 ± 0.34 b | 2.02 ± 0.05 b | 1.23 ± 0.01 |
|
| 22.04 ± 6.20 a | 2.88 ± 0.48 a | 1.37 ± 0.07 |
|
| 20.88 ± 1.90 a | 2.85 ± 0.32 ab | 1.49 ± 0.31 |
| ** ¥ | * | ns | |
|
| |||
|
| 10.72 ± 0.85 b | 2.08 ± 0.08 b | 1.24 ± 0.02 b |
|
| 16.77 ± 1.65 a | 2.87 ± 0.32 a | 1.36 ± 0.05 ab |
|
| 16.68 ± 2.83 a | 3.15 ± 0.21 a | 1.43 ± 0.07 a |
| * | ** | * | |
Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n = 3). a–b Values in the same column, among cultivated or uncultivated pots data groups, followed by a different letter, are significantly different according to HSD. test or Dunn test (¥). * Significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01, ns: not significant.
Biometric features of escarole plants at the end of the trial.
| Samples | Number of Leaves per Plant | Treated/CTP | Average Head Escarole Fresh Weight (g) | Treated/CTP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 13 ± 1.15 b | - | 6.6 ± 0.47 b | - |
|
| 22 ± 3.78 a | 1.7 ± 0.40 | 12.9 ± 0.95 a | 1.95 ± 0.22 |
|
| 19 ± 3.05 ab | 1.4 ± 0.15 | 11.2 ± 1.36 a | 1.70 ± 0.11 |
| * | ns | *** | ns |
Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n = 3). a–b Values in the same column followed by a different letter are significantly different according to the HSD test. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05; *** Significant at p ≤ 0.001; ns: not significant.
Figure 1Effect of the biomasses on chlorophyll content of escaroles grown in control soil (CTA), soil amended with wasted bread (WB), and soil amended with bioprocessed wasted bread (bWB, treated with amylase and fermented with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum H64). a–b Different letters indicate significant differences among the data according to the HSD test. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation.
Micronutrients and phosphorous content expressed as mg kg−1, of escarole leaves grown in control soil (CTP), soil amended with wasted bread (WBP), and soil amended with bioprocessed wasted bread (bWBP, treated with amylase and fermented with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum H64).
| Sample | B | Mn | Fe | Cu | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTP | 15.45 ± 3.85 a | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 14.77 ± 6.60 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 358 ± 111 a |
| WBP | 7.36 ± 0.96 b | 0.76 ± 0.06 | 15.31 ± 2.93 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 131 ± 50 b |
| bWBP | 2.13 ± 2.52 b | 1.06 ± 0.26 | 10.61 ± 3.24 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 144 ± 29 b |
| ** | ns | ns | ns | * |
Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n = 3). a–b Values in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different according to HSD.test. * Significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01, ns: not significant.