Chemical composition of cashew apple and cashew apple

waste ensiled with poultry litter

La Van Kinh, Vu Van Do and Dang Duc Phuong
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Abstract
The aims of this study were to examine the possibility of using whole cashew apple
and cashew apple waste (a residue from fruit processing) as feed for dairy cows by
ensiling them with poultry litter. The basic material was either the waste` (after juice
extraction) or the whole cashew apple. Four treatments (combinations with poultry
litter) with each product were compared. as follows: 100% cashew apple waste
(CAW) or cashew apple (CA), 90% CAW (or CA) +10% poultry litter (PL), 80%
CAW (or CA) + 20% PL and 70% CAW (or CA) + 30% PL based on fresh weight.
The materials were ensiled in glass jars (2.5 litres capacity). There were 3 replications
(jars) of each treatment of whole fruit and waste and of each of the sampling times,
which were at 0, 3, 7, 15 and 30 days after ensiling.
The pH fell rapidly in the first three days and continued to fall until the 7th day to a
constant value of around 4.45. Total sugars also were reduced dramatically in the first
three days (from 12.2 to 1.9% in DM). The sensory evaluation showed that the silages
from 100% CAW or 90% CAW and 10% PL were of acceptable quality (yellow
colour, nice smell) and those from 80% and 70% CAW were not acceptable (dark
colour, bad odour).
It is concluded that cashew apple fruit and cashew apple waste (after juice extraction)
can be preserved for long term use by anaerobic ensiling and that there appeared to be
little advantage in mixing them with poultry litter before ensiling. The conversion of
the soluble sugars into organic acids and alcohol may have negative effects on
nutritive value. Feeding trials are necessary to evaluate this.
Key words: Cashew apple fruit, waste, ensiling, composition
Introduction
Vietnam needs to develop its dairy cow population and milk production but feed
shortage is one of the main constraints. Traditional feeds are expensive and

agroindustrial by-products such as brewery grains have been exploited and exhausted.
Cashew apple (Anacardium occidentale) is a promising feed source, which could be
used for dairy cows. In 1995, the whole country had 200,000 ha of cashew trees. From
this area, about 500,000 tons of cashew apple will be produced per year. There is
commercial interest in processing the fresh apple as a source of sugar-rich juice for
human consumption. The waste product from processing, after drying, has been fed to
pigs and poultry with promising results (La Van Kinh unpublished observations). The
problem is that it is uneconomical to dry the cashew apple or the waste product after
juice extraction, and it is more appropriate to develop methods to use it in wet form.
This was the rationale for the present study.
Because of the high content of water-soluble carbohydrates - the main substrate for
lactic fermentation - and the low content of crude protein (low buffering capacity), it
was hypothesized that the cashew apple, and the waste product, should be ensiled with
poultry litter. Poultry litter has good buffering capacity and a high content of NPN as
uric acid. The idea to use poultry litter was based on experiences with other sugar-rich
feeds such as citrus and pineapple pulps and ground sugar cane. The dry poultry litter
helped to raise the dry matter of the ensiled product and, by providing fermentable
nitrogen (as uric acid) and minerals, helped to encourage the growth of lactic acid
bacteria rather than alcohol-forming yeast (Preston T R unpublished observations).
The hypotheses to be tested were that:

the best storage method for cashew apple waste would be anaerobic ensiling to
avoid the respiration losses and inhibit development of the putrefactive
microorganisms
that the addition of poultry litter would facilitate a lactic acid fermentation and
avoid the formation of excessive amounts of alcohol .

The ensiling process relies on the fermentation to produce lactic acid. A good silage is
one with minimum dry matter losses, lactic acid as not more than 60% of total acid
and acetic acid not exceeding 2.5 % of the dry matter and butyric acid less than 0.5
%in dry matter.
Materials and methods
Feeds
Cashew apple waste (CAW) was brought from a factory processing cashew apples to
extract the juice. The poultry litter (PL) was from a State farm where laying birds

were housed on deep litter. The composition of these feed resources was determined
by standard methods (AOAC 1988) and is shown in Table 1.
Experimental design
There were 4 treatments applied to each of the basic materials of CA and CAW,
consisting of mixtures of CA or CAW and PL (% fresh basis). Separate jars (capacity
2.5 litres) were filled for each of five sampling times (0, 3, 7, 10, 15 and 30 days) with
three replications of each treatment/time combination.
The treatments were:
Cashew apple waste
CAW100: CAW with no additive
CAW90: 90CAW + 10PL
CAW80: 80CAW + 20PL
CAW70: 70CAW + 30PL
Cashew apple
The treatments were the same as for CAW but using CA.
Method of ensiling in the laboratory and sampling
CAW or CA was mixed with PL, put into a jar (2.5 litres capacity) and compressed to
expel all the air and the jars closed with an air-tight lid.
Measurements
The fermentation characteristics were determined by the following parameters:

Silage dry matter was determined by weighing a sample of fresh material,

cutting it into small pieces and drying it at 65EC for 5 hours. It was then
ground into meal and dried at 105EC for a further 5 hours.

pH was determined with a glass electrode pH meter, on a 10g sample after

shaking with 100ml of distilled water for 1 hour.

Total N was determined on the dried sample using the Kjeldahl method.

Soluble N was determined on silage juice or on water extracted juice using the
Kjeldahl method.

N-NH3 was determined by distillation after addition of Mg(OH) 2 followed by

titration with 0.1N H2SO4 with Alizarin sodium sulphate as colour indicator.

Organic acids were determined by using the LepperFlieg method (AOAC 1988)

Method of evaluation of silage quality (based on INRA standard)

The proposed parameters are set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Evaluation of silage quality according to INRA Standard

Evaluation

Excellent
Very good
Good
Bad
Very bad

Acetic acid, % in Butyric acid, %

DM
in DM
<2.0
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 5.5
5.5 - 7.5
> 7.5

0
< 0.5
> 0.5
> 0.5
> 0. 5

Soluble N, % of
total N

N-NH3, % of total
N

< 50
50 - 60
60 - 65
65 - 75
> 75

<5
7 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
> 20

Results and Discussion

The detailed analytical data for all combinations of cashew apple waste (or cashew
apple) and poultry litter with time of ensiling are in Annex Tables 1 and 2. The
sensory characteristics are in Table 3. The trends for pH with time of ensiling for all
combinations of cashew apple waste and poultry litter are in Figure 1. Figures 2, 3 and
4 show data for the zero and 10% poultry litter level for total sugars, lactic acid and
soluble N as percentage of total N in the cashew apple waste silages. .

Table 2: Chemical composition of cashew apple

waste (CAW) and of poultry litter (PL)

Dry matter, %
Content in DM, %
N*6.25
Crude fibre
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Total sugars
Soluble N, % total N
N-NH3 ,% total N
PH

CAW

CA

PL

22.5

12.37

86.5

13.7
11.8
1.4
0.25
0.34
26.5
10.9
1.82
4.1

12.5
3.54
1.62
0.03
0.07
54.7
25.6
2.07
4.00

17.5
15.8
22.34
3.32
1.66
Nd
26.7
7.14
Nd

Nd Not determined

The only silages that could be considered to be acceptable on the basis of colour and
smell were those with zero and 10% poultry litter (Table 3). The trends for pH showed
clearly that with more than 10% poultry litter the final pH was too high to ensure
satisfactory preservation. However, this situation was not reflected in the levels of
soluble N or in the organic acid concentrations (Figures 3 and 4). The former was high
(20-30%) on all combinations of CAW and PL while the latter were all in the normal
range.

The sugar content fell dramatically in all silages within 3 days of beginning the
ensiling process as can be seen in Figures 2 and 5, which show results for the 100/0
and 90/10 CAW/PL and CA/PL combinations. More than one third of the sugars was
fermented to ethanol for the CA silages and presumably the same occurred with the
CAW silages. Adding poultry litter to the whole cashew fruit reduced the
concentrations of ethanol but did not preserve the sugars (Annex table 2).

Conclusions

CAW or CA can be ensiled alone or with poultry litter (PL). The best ratio is
90% CAW (or CA) and 10% PL (fresh weight basis). Higher ratios of poultry
litter resulted in poor quality silages not suitable as animal feed.
Soluble sugars were present in high concentrations in the cashew apple and
cashew apple waste ( in DM, respectively). Irrespective of the presence of
poultry litter these were fermented to organic acids and alcohol, which may
have negative effects on nutritive value.

Acknowledgement
We would like to express many thanks to the International Foundation for Science for
financial support to the senior author (Grant No: B/2433) to carry out this project.
References
AOAC 1988 Official Methods of Chemical Analysis. Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists. Washington DC (4th edition)

Annex Table 1: Mean values for composition of silage according to level of addition of poultry litter
and duration of ensiling (values are on % DM basis except for soluble N and NH 3-N which are as % of
total N)
Item Day DM

CP

100 % CAW
0
22.52 13.73
3
21.97 13.62
7
21.63 13.66
15 21.72 13.45
30 22.02 13.9
90 % CAW + 10% PL
0
29
14.2
3
29
14.05

Sugar pH

Lactic Lactic, Acetic

% total
acid

Butyric

Soluble N NH3-N

26.50
2.17
1.99
1.50
0.67

4.1
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0

2.75
1.95
4.02
4.82
2.86

89.87
52.21
64.42
48.26
54.76

0.31
1.69
2.10
5.33
2.26

0
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.10

10.92
19.04
25.36
21.85
21.23

1.82
2.98
4.95
8.78
7.68

18.86
3.12

5.0
4.0

2.44
1.91

92.78
83.30

0.19
0.31

0
0.08

34.99
28.05

8.54
10.23

7
28.75 14.1
15 28.75 14.0
30 28.75 14.15
80% CAW +20% PL
0
35.5
14.7
3
35.25 14.8
7
34.5
14.0
15 35.0
14.45
30 34.5
14.7
70% CAW +30 % PL
0
41.6
15.0
3
41.1
14.75
7
41.45 14.75
15 41.65 14.9
30 41.1
15.15

2.59
2.37
1.15

4.0
3.9
4.0

3.09
8.06
7.56

63.66
81.13
67.27

1.61
1.71
3.51

0.14
0.15
0.14

21.80
31.28
28.27

9.52
10.48
9.73

16.12
0.97
1.63
1.45
1.02

5.9
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6

1.62
1.17
4.21
3.73
4.38

68.35
56.39
79.40
66.59
59.75

0.75
0.73
1.02
1.75
2.89

0
0.18
0.07
0.13
0.13

30.57
30.29
30.14
31.17
28.62

9.95
12.25
11.74
11.14
6.46

3.70
1.34
1.14
0.84
0.81

6.7
5.6
5.2
5.3
5.2

1.58
0.71
3.59
3.02
3.97

62.20
40.42
63.67
69.70
53.12

0.96
0.96
1.97
1.19
3.27

0
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.24

31.25
30.08
29.63
28.09
28.22

10.29
11.66
14.22
11.95
5.94

Annex Table 2: Mean values for composition of silage from whole cashew apple fruit according to level
of addition of poultry litter and duration of ensiling (values are on %DM basis except for soluble N and
NH3-N which are as % of total N)
Day

DM

CP

100% CA
0
12.37 12.50
3
12.27 12.19
7
12.70 12.40
15
12.21 12.38
30
12.37 12.41
90% CA + 10% PL
0
20.27 13.38
3
19.83 13.10
7
19.97 13.07
15
20.12 13.03
30
20.15 13.17
80% CA + 20% PL
0
27.12 13.70
3
27.19 13.40
7
27.23 13.37
15
27.28 13.63
30
26.93 13.33
70% CA + 30% PL
0
34.34 14.00

Sugar pH

Lactic

Lactic, % Acetic Butyric

total acid

54.7
35.7
26.9
10.5
8.6

4.0
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5

5.00
11.25
13.31
12.69
19.49

95.57
70.07
75.74
76.90
64.71

0.23
4.28
4.24
3.80
10.57

31.0
18.0
16.8
3.2
1.7

4.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.1

3.06
15.46
16.15
9.62
11.55

93.04
74.45
73.01
73.94
58.99

0.23
5.52
5.93
3.33
7.77

20.6
6.4
5.6
2.0
1.7

5.6
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.3

2.69
10.39
13.87
9.03
10.54

85.06
78.26
81.45
68.86
60.20

0.48
2.87
2.88
4.06
6.96

13.8

5.9

2.35

75.17

0.78

0.42
0.03
0.01
0.05

0.04
0.03
0.08
0.21

0.03
0.28
0.15
0.08

EthanolSoluble-N- Ash
N
NH3

13.89
15.78
17.65

8.21
7.06
7.17

1.14
3.08
9.11

25.62
29.41
18.74
25.98
26.31

28.45
32.47
38.63
32.39

33.32
36.67
37.32
39.31

2.07
1.93
3.29
4.72
2.53

1.62
3.33
3.2
3.48
3.22

3.62
3.45
11.6
11.4

6.78
6.78
9.41
8.51
8.27

7.96
7.51
12.9
16.1

10.83
10.36
10.35
9.54
10.02
13.07

3
7
15
30

34.21
34.26
34.24
34.32

14.20
14.47
14.30
14.37

7.1
4.9
1.6
0.6

4.5
4.6
4.6
4.5

8.82
10.29
7.2
9.72

76.49
70.52
71.74
60.94

2.73
4.16
2.66
6.16

0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1

2.26
1.96
6.00

38.38
36.48
39.94
42.79

10.9
8.89
12.6
13.6

13.07
12.73
10.99
11.5