BACKGROUND: Peat-based mixes and synthetic mats are the main substrates used for microgreens production. However, both are expensive and non-renewable. Recycled fibrous materials may represent low-cost and renewable alternative substrates. Recycled textile-fiber (TF; polyester, cotton and polyurethane traces) and jute-kenaf-fiber (JKF; 85% jute, 15% kenaf-fibers) mats were characterized and compared with peat and Sure to Grow® (Sure to Grow, Beachwood, OH, USA; http://suretogrow.com) (STG; 100% polyethylene-terephthalate) for the production of rapini (Brassica rapa L.; Broccoletto group) microgreens. RESULTS: All substrates had suitable physicochemical properties for the production of microgreens. On average, microgreens fresh yield was 1502 g m−2 in peat, TF and JKF, and was 13.1% lower with STG. Peat-grown microgreen shoots had a higher concentration of K+ and SO42−and a two-fold higher NO3− concentration [1959 versus 940 mg kg−1 fresh weight (FW)] than those grown on STG, TF and JKF. At harvest, substrates did not influence microgreens aerobic bacterial populations (log 6.48 CFU g−1 FW). Peat- and JKF-grown microgreens had higher yeast-mould counts than TF- and STG microgreens (log 2.64 versus 1.80 CFU g−1 FW). Peat-grown microgreens had the highest population of Enterobacteriaceae (log 5.46 ± 0.82 CFU g−1) and Escherichia coli (log 1.46 ± 0.15 CFU g−1). Escherichia coli was not detected in microgreens grown on other media. CONCLUSION: TF and JKF may be valid alternatives to peat and STG because both ensured a competitive yield, low nitrate content and a similar or higher microbiological quality. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.

Physicochemical, agronomical and microbiological evaluation of alternative growing media for the production of rapini (Brassica rapa L.) microgreens

Di Gioia, Francesco;Mininni, Carlo;Santamaria, Pietro;
2017-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Peat-based mixes and synthetic mats are the main substrates used for microgreens production. However, both are expensive and non-renewable. Recycled fibrous materials may represent low-cost and renewable alternative substrates. Recycled textile-fiber (TF; polyester, cotton and polyurethane traces) and jute-kenaf-fiber (JKF; 85% jute, 15% kenaf-fibers) mats were characterized and compared with peat and Sure to Grow® (Sure to Grow, Beachwood, OH, USA; http://suretogrow.com) (STG; 100% polyethylene-terephthalate) for the production of rapini (Brassica rapa L.; Broccoletto group) microgreens. RESULTS: All substrates had suitable physicochemical properties for the production of microgreens. On average, microgreens fresh yield was 1502 g m−2 in peat, TF and JKF, and was 13.1% lower with STG. Peat-grown microgreen shoots had a higher concentration of K+ and SO42−and a two-fold higher NO3− concentration [1959 versus 940 mg kg−1 fresh weight (FW)] than those grown on STG, TF and JKF. At harvest, substrates did not influence microgreens aerobic bacterial populations (log 6.48 CFU g−1 FW). Peat- and JKF-grown microgreens had higher yeast-mould counts than TF- and STG microgreens (log 2.64 versus 1.80 CFU g−1 FW). Peat-grown microgreens had the highest population of Enterobacteriaceae (log 5.46 ± 0.82 CFU g−1) and Escherichia coli (log 1.46 ± 0.15 CFU g−1). Escherichia coli was not detected in microgreens grown on other media. CONCLUSION: TF and JKF may be valid alternatives to peat and STG because both ensured a competitive yield, low nitrate content and a similar or higher microbiological quality. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Gioia_et_al-2016-Journal_of_the_Science_of_Food_and_Agriculture.pdf

non disponibili

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 299.08 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
299.08 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/208680
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 57
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 46
social impact