Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2019 Feb 27;7(4):1172–1178. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.877

Influence of vermicompost and sheep manure on mechanical properties of tomato fruit

Ahmad Jahanbakhshi 1, Kamran Kheiralipour 2,✉
PMCID: PMC6475754  PMID: 31024690

Abstract

Mechanical properties of the horticultural products play an important role in improving the products quality and storage life after harvesting and also reducing product waste. Recently, using organic fertilizers has increasing trend for producing high‐quality products as well as improvement of soil quality. Two of the best options to produce organic material and sustainability of agricultural production are vermicompost and sheep manure. The present study relied on determination of mechanical properties through pressure and shear tests. Vermicompost and sheep manure were used separately to fertilize the soil. After planting tomato seeds and harvesting, tomato fruits were analyzed by a universal test machine. The results showed that vermicompost was a better fertilizer than sheep manure due to its more appropriate carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N), acidity, and salinity. Also, in the pressure test, the maximum force required for bruise of tomato produced with vermicompost (41.5N) was more than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure. In the shearing test, the maximum force required for shearing tomato produced with vermicompost (58.60 N) was lower than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure. The findings of this study can be used to reduce the amount of waste at different stages of tomato production and supply including the design and optimization of processing and transportation equipment.

Keywords: pressure test, quality, shear test, sheep manure, tomato, vermicompost

1. INTRODUCTION

In Iran, agricultural products are wasted in range of 5% to 50% at different stages of production to supply (Mirza Kazemi & Gholamalizadeh, 2015; Salehi, Taghizadeh‐Alisaraei, Shahidi, & Jahanbakhshi, 2018). One way to reduce such wastes is improvement of the mechanical properties of agricultural products.

Mechanical properties of agricultural products have an effective role in determining the quality of the products, reducing the potential damage caused in transportation, and eventually designing the equipment used in processing stage of the products (Desmet, Lammertyn, Verlinden, Darius, & Nicolaï, 2004; Ince, Çevik, & Vursavuş, 2016; Jahanbakhshi, 2018; Sitkei, 1987; Zhang et al., 2016).

Prasad and Gupta (1975) studied the mechanical properties of corn stalk. They determined the shearing force and strength of the stalks considering different loading rates. Ince, Uğurluay, Güzel, and Özcan (2005) carried out a study on the flexural and shear properties of sunflower. They found that increasing of moisture content decreases shearing modulus of elasticity and bending stress whereas increases the shearing energy. Krishna and Reddy (2006) investigated on mechanical properties of orange fruit and peel through determining compressive and shearing tests. The results of their study showed that the shearing force and energy of the fruits were decreased by increasing of storage time. Also, mechanical properties of different fruits and vegetables have been investigated such as apple (Kheiralipour et al., 2008), wild pistachio (Heidarbeigi, Ahmadi, Kheiralipour, & Tabatabaeefar, 2008), khinjuk (Heidarbeigi, Ahmadi, Kheiralipour, & Tabatabaeefar, 2009), peppermint stem (Kheiralipour & Hoseinpour, 2016), and carrot (Jahanbakhshi, Abbaspour‐Gilandeh, & Gundoshmian, 2018).

Vermicompost as a type of biological fertilizer is produced through a continuous and slow passage of decaying organic materials in the gastrointestinal tract of some earthworm species. When passing through the earthworm body, the materials are impregnated with the gastrointestinal mucosa, vitamins and enzymes before defecation. Thus, it is used as an enriched and very useful organic fertilizer that improves the quality and fertility of the soil (Haribhushan et al., 2013; Smith, 1998). Rochana, Sawaneg, Patma, and Bunyong (2006) stated that vermicompost leads to improve the size of the soil pores and increase soil porosity and thus the water holding capacity of the soil.

Kashem, Sarker, Hossain, and Islam (2015) investigated the effects of vermicompost and mineral fertilizers on the vegetative growth and production of tomato fruit. They reported that the relationship between vermicompost use during the growth period and plant height, leaf number, shoot and root dry weights, and number of fruits was highly significant at 5% probability level. Feibert, Shock, Barnum, and Saunders (1995) observed that using 15 tons of compost per hectare could increase onion crop yield by 15%. The researchers believed that the enhanced crop yield was due to nutrition improvement and increasing permeability and ventilation as well as the microbial activity in plant root zone. Cook, Keeling, and Bloxham (1997) reported that using vermicompost in a spring barely field caused to increase the plant's dry matter by 25% and it also increased the number of buds per plant. In organic cultivation, El Gendy, Hosni, Omer, and Reham (2001) stated that vermicompost improved the qualitative and quantitative performance of basil plant. It was reported that using vermicompost not only enhances the growth and germination of plants (Atiyeh et al., 2000; Joshi & Vig, 2010; Truong & Wang, 2015) but also enhances the growth of seedling vegetables (Bachman & Metzeger, 1998).

Tomato is the edible fruit of the Solanum lycopersicum which belongs to Solanaceae family. It is one of the most common commercial vegetables in the world. Due to low levels of fat, calorie, and free cholesterol and high levels of A, B, and C vitamins and carotene and lycopene, tomato fruit and its products are considered as healthy foods in human beings’ daily diets (Alam, Rahman, Mamun, Ahmad, & Islam, 2006; Ghaffari, RezaGhassemzadeh, Sadeghi, & Alijani, 2015; Heuvelink, 2005). Tomato is one of the most important horticultural products in different parts of Iran. Compared to other crops, tomato fruit has high waste due to high moisture content up to 90% (Gould, 2013; Heuvelink, 2005). Knowing the mechanical properties of tomato is useful to predict the conditions result in mechanical damage, and it is very important in optimization of processing machinery. In this regard, researchers have shown that there is a linear relationship between tomato's mechanical properties and its vulnerability (R 2 = 0.78) (Desmet et al., 2004). Proper nutrition of the horticultural products plays an important role in reducing waste and improving the quality of the products and their storage life after harvesting (Kays, 1991; Wills, McGlasson, Graham, & Joyce, 2007).

So according to above and also due to the importance of theoretical knowledge about the reducing agricultural waste and the lack of reporting on tomato waste, the authors decided to investigate the effect of vermicompost and sheep manure on the mechanical properties of tomato.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

To investigate the effects of vermicompost and sheep manure on the mechanical properties of tomato fruit, three treatments including control sample (no fertilizer), vermicompost, and manure fertilizer were considered to be evaluated. Some chemical properties of the vermicompost and sheep manure were determined. The pH of the samples was measured using the PH‐200L digital pH meter (Figure 1a). Crison GLP31 EC meter was applied (Figure 1b) to determine C. K and P of the samples were recorded by Jenway PFP7 flame photometer (Figure 1c) and Spectronic 2OD spectrophotometer (Figure 1d), respectively. Some micronutrients such as Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn were determined using the Analytikjena nova 400P atomic absorption spectrometer (Figure 1e).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The used instruments to determine chemical properties of the manures. (a) pH‐meter, (b) EC‐meter, (c) Flame photometer, (d) Spectrophotometer, and (e) Atomic absorption spectrometer

Each treatment was experimented with three replications. For that, 6 plots with area of 2 m2 were prepared. Fertilizers were mixed with soil at the depth of 15 cm with amount of 1 kg in each plot with area of 2 m2 (5 tons per hectare). All variables such as irrigation, temperature, fighting against pests and diseases, weed control, and light were the same for all treatments during the growing period. In each plot, three tomatoes were planted at the distance of 30 cm from each other. The ripped tomatoes were hand‐picked, cleaned manually, and stored in an environment with the temperature of 11–12°C. The tomatoes were transferred from the storage place to the laboratory about one hour before determining mechanical properties. To determine the mechanical properties of tomato fruit, two tests, that is, pressure (compress) and shear test, were performed. To do so, a universal testing machine (Model: Z 0.5; Zwick/Roell company, Germany) was used (Figure 2). The mechanical properties were tested on three samples of tomato for each plot.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The Zwick/Roell universal testing machine

Pressure test was conducted under vertical loading according to the ASTMD 790‐03 standard in room temperature at the loading rate of 20 mm/min. At the same loading rate, the shear test was done using a flat edge blade with thickness of 1.4 mm and the blade angle of 30° was used according to DIN53294 standard (Figure 3). The universal testing machine was simultaneously connected to a computer to collect data.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(a) Pressure test and (b) Shear test

In this research, SAS 9.4 software was used to analyze and perform statistical operations based on completely randomized design. Also, the mean comparison between treatments was done based on LSD test.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of chemical analysis of the vermicompost and sheep manure have been given in Table 1. The results indicated that carbon to nitrogen ratio is more appropriate in vermicompost compared to sheep manure. Thus, using vermicompost as a fertilizer would provide better and more facilitative conditions for the plant to absorb nutritious elements.

Table 1.

Chemical properties of vermicompost and sheep manure

Property Unit Vermicompost Sheep manure
pH — 7.3 7.8
EC dS/m 7.5 11.5
Fe mg/kg 7,653 7,432
Zn mg/kg 278 176
Cu mg/kg 31 25
Mn mg/kg 475 420
K % 0.75 0.62
P % 0.49 0.41
O.C % 28 19
C/N — 12.8 28
Open in a new tab

The ability to absorb nutrients is highly dependent on the pH, and the proper pH range for the crops is between 6.5 and 7.5. According to the results of this study, vermicompost has more neutral pH compared to sheep manure and using a high amount of that has not detrimental effects on the soil and plants.

Moreover, vermicompost is odorless and its impurity is much lower than sheep manure. The EC of the vermicompost is modified much more than the sheep manure and is at such a desirable level that it does not contaminate the soil. In addition, it decreases the salinity stress so causes to avoid change of the amount and types of the regulating metabolites of plant growth and thus decrease its effects on the growth rate.

Another major advantage of vermicompost compared to sheep manure is the high absorbable concentrations of K and P elements. Also, organic acids in vermicompost are mostly organic chelating agents that absorb micronutrients such as Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn (Ahmad Abadi, Ghajar Sepanlou, & Bahmanyar, 2011; Alikhani, Yakhchali, & Mohammadi, 2011; Dominguez & Edwards, 2010; Hashemimajd, Kalbasi, Golchin, & Shariatmadari, 2004; Tognetti, Laos, Mazzarino, & Hernandez, 2005). Vermicompost and sheep manure are very similar with respect to their advantages but the disadvantages of sheep manure are more than those of the vermicompost. Some of these disadvantages are the existence of different types of viruses and microorganisms pathogens, higher crop production cast due to hiring workers and use pesticides to control the weeds in gardens and farms, more undesirable microorganisms, difficult storage process, creation of disgusting smell, and the transmission of common diseases between humans and animals.

The results of variance analysis of the effect of fertilizer type on the mechanical properties of tomato in the pressure test have been presented in Table 2. The results show that the effect of fertilizer type on mechanical properties of tomatoes was significant in the pressure test at 1% probability level. This result indicates that it can be said that there is a significant difference between the mean treatments with 99% confidence.

Table 2.

Results of variance analysis of the effect of fertilizer type on mechanical properties of tomato in the pressure test

Factor DF Mean square
Peak force Deformation Energy Peak force Deformation Energy
Fertilizer 2 2 2 93.17** 121.76** 246,850.03**
Error 6 6 6 0.48 0.12 48.13
Total 8 8 8 — — —
Open in a new tab

**Significant at 1% probability level.

The mechanical properties of tomato determined through pressure test have been listed in Table 3. In this table, the values of the peak force required to the failure of the tomato fruit, deformation in peak force, and the energy to reach the peak force under pressure test have been provided.

Table 3.

Mechanical properties of tomato in pressure test

Pressure property Manure Minimum Average Maximum Standard deviation Coefficient of variation (%)
Peak force (N) Control sample 30.20 30.60c 31.00 0.40 1.30
Sheep manure 33.60 34.03b 34.50 0.45 1.32
Vermicompost 40.80 41.50a 42.70 1.04 2.50
Deformation (mm) Control sample 13.15 13.45b 14.00 0.47 3.49
Sheep manure 13.83 14.11b 14.50 0.34 2.40
Vermicompost 24.60 24.80a 25.00 0.20 0.80
Energy (N mm) Control sample 203.35 207.65c 210.11 3.73 1.79
Sheep manure 219.00 223.31b 226.21 3.80 1.70
Vermicompost 699.89 712.13a 720.12 10.76 1.51
Open in a new tab

Nonsimilar letters indicate a significant difrence at 1% probablity level.

The mean values of the peak force, deformation, and the energy to reach the peak force under pressure test were 30.60 N, 13.45 mm, and 207.65 N/mm, respectively, for the fruits produced without fertilizer (control samples), 34.03 N, 14.11 mm, and 223.31 N/mm, respectively, for the fruits produced by sheep manure and 41.50 N, 24.80 mm, and 712.13 N/mm, respectively, for the fruits produced by vermicompost fertilizer. The results showed that the peak force of tomato produced using vermicompost was 45.05% and 42.44% more than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure, respectively. Also, the deformation was more in vermicompost. So, the energy performed to reach the peak force of the tomato fruit produced by vermicompost was higher than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure. This is due to rich nutrients in vermicompost that gradually provides the plant requirements, and this makes the soil more fertile and yields higher‐quality products. Therefore, it is suggested that farmers use organic fertilizers such as vermicompost in order to reduce tomato waste at different stages of harvesting and supply chain.

In similar studies, Truong and Wang (2015), Kashem et al. (2015), Tognetti et al. (2005), Alikhani et al. (2011) and Ahmad Abadi and Ghajar Sepanlou (2012) confirmed that besides better physical and chemical properties of vermicompost compared to ordinary composts, it is particularly superior to provide plant growth stimulants such as vitamins, enzymes, and growth factors.

The results of variance analysis of the effect of fertilizer type on the mechanical properties of tomato in the shear test have been presented in Table 4. The results showed that the effect of fertilizer type at the 1% probability level on the shear test of tomatoes was significant.

Table 4.

Results of variance analysis of the effect of fertilizer type on mechanical properties of tomato in the shear test

Factor DF Mean square
Maximum force Deformation Shear resistance Maximum force Deformation Shear resistance
Fertilizer 2 2 2 1,102.02** 1,759.19** 0.0003**
Error 6 6 6 0.83 2.72 0.000001
Total 8 8 8 — — —
Open in a new tab

**Significant at 1% probability level.

The shearing properties of tomato fruit have been given in Table 5. In the shear test, the maximum force required to cut the tomato fruit, shear resistance, and deformation while exercising the maximum force of tomatoes produced without fertilizer were 93.26 N, 62.70 mm, and 0.043 N/mm2, respectively, 90.10 N, 59.63 mm, and 0.036 N/mm2, respectively, for the tomatoes produced by sheep manure and 58.60 N, 19.31 mm, and 0.023 N/mm2, respectively, for the tomatoes produced by vermicompost fertilizer. As can be seen, the maximum force necessary to shear the tomato produced by vermicompost is lower than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure. The data obtained about the mechanical properties of tomato in the shear test can be used by the factories that process this product. These results are in agreement with the results obtained by Jahanbakhshi et al. (2018), Sessiz, Esgici, Özdemir, Eliçin, and Pekitkan (2015), Jafari, Rajabipour, and Mobli (2010), and Persson (1987).

Table 5.

Mechanical properties of tomato in shear test

Shear property Manure Maximum Average Minimum Standard deviation Coefficient of variation (%)
Maximum force (N) Control sample 94.45 93.26a 92.20 1.12 1.20
Sheep manure 91.20 90.10b 89.10 1.05 1.16
Vermicompost 59.00 58.60c 58.35 0.35 0.59
Deformation (mm) Control sample 64.95 62.70a 61.50 1.95 3.11
Sheep manure 61.85 59.63a 58.10 1.96 3.28
Vermicompost 20.13 19.31b 18.8 0.71 3.67
Shear resistance (N/mm2) Control sample 0.045 0.043a 0.042 0.001 2.32
Sheep manure 0.037 0.036b 0.035 0.001 2.77
Vermicompost 0.024 0.023c 0.022 0.0003 1.30
Open in a new tab

Nonsimilar letters indicate a significant difrence at 1% probablity level.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, pressure and shear properties of tomato fruit produced using control sample (no fertilizer), vermicompost, and sheep manure were determined. The pressure properties of the tomato fruits produced by vermicompost were higher than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure whereas the shearing properties of the fruits produced by vermicompost were lower than that of control sample (no fertilizer) and sheep manure. It was concluded that vermicompost can be used to improve the mechanical properties and then reduce the amount of waste at different stages of tomato production and supply including.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

ETHICAL REVIEW

This study does not involve any human or animal testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Ilam University for partial support of this study.

Jahanbakhshi A, Kheiralipour K. Influence of vermicompost and sheep manure on mechanical properties of tomato fruit. Food Sci Nutr. 2019;7:1172–1178. 10.1002/fsn3.877

REFERENCES

  1. Ahmad Abadi, Z. , & Ghajar Sepanlou, M. (2012). Effect of organic matter application on some of the soil physical properties. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation, 19, 99–116 (In Persian). [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmad Abadi, Z. , Ghajar Sepanlou, M. , & Bahmanyar, M. A. (2011). Effect of vermicompost application on amount of micro elements in soil and the content in the medicinal plant of Borage (Borago officinalis). Journal of Crops Improvement, 13(2), 1172–12 (In Persian). [Google Scholar]
  3. Alam, M. J. , Rahman, M. H. , Mamun, M. A. , Ahmad, I. , & Islam, K. (2006). Enzyme activities in relation to sugar accumulation in tomato. Proceedings‐Pakistan Academy of Sciences, 43(4), 241. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alikhani, H. A. , Yakhchali, B. , & Mohammadi, L. (2011). The comparison of physical and chemical characteristics of common compost and vermicompost. Iranian Journal of Biology, 24(6), 925–934 (In Persian). [Google Scholar]
  5. Atiyeh, R. M. , Subler, S. , Edwards, C. A. , Bachman, G. , Metzger, J. D. , & Shuster, W. (2000). Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia, 44(5), 579–590. 10.1078/S0031-4056(04)70073-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bachman, G. R. , & Metzeger, J. D. (1998). The use of vermicompost as a media amendment. Pedo Biologia, 32, 419–423. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cook, J. A. , Keeling, A. A. , & Bloxham, P. F. (1997). Effect of green waste compost on yield parameters in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) v. Hart. In International Symposium on Composting & Use of Composted Material in Horticulture, 469, 283–286. 10.17660/actahortic.1998.469.29 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Desmet, M. , Lammertyn, J. , Verlinden, B. E. , Darius, P. , & Nicolaï, B. M. (2004). The relative influence of stem and fruit properties on stem puncture injury in tomatoes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 33(2), 101–109. 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dominguez, J. , & Edwards, C. A. (2010). Relationships between composting and vermicomposting. Vermiculture Technology Earthworms, Organic Wastes, and Environmental Management, 1, 11–26. 10.1201/b10453 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. El Gendy, S. A. , Hosni, A. M. , Omer, E. A. , & Reham, M. S. (2001). Variation in herbage yield, essential oil yield and oil composition on sweet basil (Ocimum bacilicum) grown organically in a newly reclaimed land in Egypt. Arab Universities Journal of Agricultural Science, 9, 915–933. [Google Scholar]
  11. Feibert, E. G. B. , Shock, C. C. , Barnum, J. M. , & Saunders, L. D. (1995). Effect of Penn soil and compost on onion production. OSU. Malheur Experiment Station Special Report, 947: 79–81.
  12. Ghaffari, H. , RezaGhassemzadeh, H. , Sadeghi, M. , & Alijani, S. (2015). Some physical, mechanical and chemical properties of tomato fruit related to mechanical damage and bruising models. Biological Forum, 7(2), 712. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gould, W. A. (2013). Tomato production, processing and technology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  14. Haribhushan, A. , Wani, S. H. , Kumar, D. , Singh, Y. K. , Jyotsna, N. , Kamei, D. , & Sanghera, G. S. (2013). Vermicompost and sustainable agriculture. Conventional and Non‐conventional Interventions in Crop Improvement, 137–164. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hashemimajd, K. , Kalbasi, M. , Golchin, A. , & Shariatmadari, H. (2004). Comparison of vermicompost and composts as potting media for growth of tomatoes. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 27(6), 1107–1123. 10.1081/PLN-120037538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Heidarbeigi, K. , Ahmadi, H. , Kheiralipour, K. , & Tabatabaeefar, A. (2008). Some physical and mechanical properties of Iranian wild pistachio (Pistachio mutica L.). American‐Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 3, 521–525. [Google Scholar]
  17. Heidarbeigi, K. , Ahmadi, H. , Kheiralipour, K. , & Tabatabaeefar, A. (2009). Some physical and mechanical properties of khinjuk. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 8, 74–77. 10.3923/pjn.2009.74.77 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Heuvelink, E. (Ed.) (2005). Tomatoes (Vol. 13). Wallingford, UK: CABI; 10.1079/9780851993966.0000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ince, A. , Çevik, M. Y. , & Vursavuş, K. K. (2016). Effects of maturity stages on textural mechanical properties of tomato. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(6), 200–206. 10.3965/j.ijabe.20160906.1999 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ince, A. , Uğurluay, S. , Güzel, E. , & Özcan, M. T. (2005). Bending and shearing characteristics of sunflower stalk residue. Biosystems Engineering, 92(2), 175–181. 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jafari, M. , Rajabipour, A. , & Mobli, H. (2010). Effect of velocity and blade type on shearing forces for two varieties of sugar cane in southern Khuzestan province. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 11(3), 15–26 (In Persian). [Google Scholar]
  22. Jahanbakhshi, A. (2018). Determine some engineering properties of snake melon (Cucumis melo var. flexuosus). Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 20(1), 171–176. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jahanbakhshi, A. , Abbaspour‐Gilandeh, Y. , & Gundoshmian, T. M. (2018). Determination of physical and mechanical properties of carrot in order to reduce waste during harvesting and post‐harvesting. Food Science & Nutrition, 6, 1898–1903. 10.1002/fsn3.760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Joshi, R. , & Vig, A. P. (2010). Effect of vermicompost on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.). African Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2(3–4), 117–123. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kashem, M. A. , Sarker, A. , Hossain, I. , & Islam, M. S. (2015). Comparison of the effect of vermicompost and inorganic fertilizers on vegetative growth and fruit production of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Open Journal of Soil Science, 5(02), 53 10.4236/ojss.2015.52006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kays, S. J. (1991). Postharvest physiology and handling of perishable plant products. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Inc. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kheiralipour, K. , & Hoseinpour, S. (2016). Determining and modeling shearing properties of peppermint stem. Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5, 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kheiralipour, K. , Tabatabaeefar, A. , Mobli, H. , Sahrarow, A. , Rafiee, S. , Rajabipour, A. , & Jafari, A. (2008). Some mechanical and nutritional properties of two varieties of apple (Malus domestica Borkh L.) in Iran. American‐Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 3, 343–346. [Google Scholar]
  29. Krishna, K. S. , & Reddy, B. S. (2006). Postharvest physico‐mechanical properties of orange peel and fruit. Journal of Food Engineering, 73(2), 112–120. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mirza Kazemi, M. , & Gholamalizadeh, S. (2015). Evaluation of practical solutions in post‐harvest to reduce waste of horticultural crops. Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources Engineering Disciplinary Organization, 13(48), 13–17 (In Persian). [Google Scholar]
  31. Persson, S. (1987). Mechanics of cutting plant material. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. [Google Scholar]
  32. Prasad, J. , & Gupta, C. P. (1975). Mechanical properties of maize stalk as related to harvesting. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 20(1), 79–87. 10.1016/0021-8634(75)90098-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rochana, T. , Sawaneg, R. , Patma, V. R. , & Bunyong, T. (2006). Effect of organic and clay mineral amendment on physical properties of degraded sandy soil for sugarcane production. Sugar Tech, 8(1), 44–48. 10.1007/bf02943740 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Salehi, R. , Taghizadeh‐Alisaraei, A. , Shahidi, F. , & Jahanbakhshi, A. (2018). Potentiometric of bioethanol production from cantaloupe waste (Magassi Neishabouri Cultivar). Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 10.1016/j.jssas.2018.05.006 (in press). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sessiz, A. , Esgici, R. , Özdemir, G. , Eliçin, A. K. , & Pekitkan, F. G. (2015). Cutting properties of different grape varieties. Poljoprivreda i Sumarstvo, 61(1), 211. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sitkei, G. (1987). Mechanics of agricultural materials (Vol. 8). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith, K. (1998). Practical guide to raising earthworm (basic vermiculture information) KW rabbit and worm. Bioresource Technology, 84, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tognetti, C. , Laos, F. , Mazzarino, M. J. , & Hernandez, M. T. (2005). Composting vs. vermicomposting: A comparison of end product quality. Compost Science & Utilization, 13(1), 6–13. 10.1080/1065657X.2005.10702212 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Truong, H. D. , & Wang, C. H. (2015). Effects of different combination of vermicompost on growth, yield, and fruit quality of two tomato varieties under greenhouse conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, 7(11), 216. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wills, R. B. H. , McGlasson, W. B. , Graham, D. , & Joyce, D. C. (2007). Postharvest: An introduction to the physiology and handling of fruit, vegetables and ornamentals (pp. vi‐ix+). Wallingford, UK: CABI. [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang, X. , Guo, Q. , Xu, Y. , Li, P. , Chen, C. , & Wu, S. (2016). Mechanical testing of tomato plant stem in relation to structural composition. Agricultural Research, 5(3), 236–245. 10.1007/s40003-016-0209-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES