Nutrient content of cabbage and lettuce microgreens grown on compost and hydroponic growing pads

Abstract

Current food systems, the collective processes involved in food production, distribution and consumption, create a dichotomous problem of nutritional excess and insufficiency and are not environmentally sustainable. One specific nutritional problem that needs attention is mineral (e.g., Fe, Zn) malnutrition, which impacts over two-thirds of the World’s people living in countries of every economic status. Microgreens, the edible cotelydons of many vegetables, flowers, and herbs, is a newly emerging crop that is potentially a dense source of minerals that can be sustainably produced in almost any locale. In this study, the nutrient contents of lettuce and cabbage microgreens grown hydroponically (HP) and on vermicompost (C) were assessed and compared to each other as well as to the nutrient contents of store-bought cabbage and lettuce (mature vegetables). Of the 10 nutrients examined (P, K, S, Ca, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn, Fe, Na), C cabbage microgreens had significantly larger quantities of all nutrients than HP cabbage microgreens (p-values <0.00321) with the exception of P; C lettuce microgreens had significantly larger quantities of all nutrients than HP lettuce microgreens (p-values <0.024) except for P, Mg and Cu. Compared to the mature vegetable, C or HP cabbage microgreens had significantly larger quantities of all nutrients examined (p-values <0.001) and C or HP lettuce microgreens had significantly larger quantities of all nutrients except for Ca and Na (p-values <0.0012). Results of this study indicate that microgreens grown on vermicompost have greater nutrient contents than those grown hydroponically. As microgreens can be grown easily in one’s home using the methods used in this study, they may provide a means for consumer access to larger quantities of nutrients per gram plant biomass relative to store-bought mature vegetables, which had lower nutrient contents than microgreens with respect to most nutrients examined.

Full text

Research Article Open Access
Volume 3 • Issue 4 • 1000190
J Hortic, an open access journal
ISSN: 2376-0354
OMICS International
Research Article
Weber, J Hortic 2016, 3:4
DOI: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
Journal of Horticulture
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
H
o
r
t
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
ISSN: 2376-0354
*Corresponding author: Carolyn F Weber, Department of Biological Sciences,
Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA, Tel: (505) 412-8384; E-mail:
Carolyn.F.Weber@dmu.edu
Received November 01, 2016; Accepted December 13, 2016; Published
December 16, 2016
Citation: Weber CF (2016) Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce Microgreens
Grown on Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads. J Hortic 3: 190. doi:
10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
Copyright: © 2016 Weber CF. This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce Microgreens Grown on
Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads
Carolyn F Weber*
Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
Keywords: Microgreens; Lettuce; Cabbage; Nutrients;
Vermicompost; Hydroponic
Abbreviations: LV: Lettuce (Mature Vegetable); LC: Lettuce
Microgreens Grown on Vermicompost; LHP: Lettuce Microgreens
Grown Hydroponically; CV: Cabbage (Mature Vegetable); CC: Cabbage
Microgreens Grown on Compost; CHP: Cabbage Microgreens Grown
Hydroponically; MG’s: Microgreens; s.d.: Standard Deviation
Introduction
One-third of the World’s people, living in countries of every
economic status, is overweight and/or undernourished [1-3]. is
dichotomous problem of nutritional excess and insuciency is the
product of processes associated with food production, distribution and
consumption [1]. e reliance of urban populations on long food chains
that begin in distant rural areas limits accessibility to produce that has
short shelf-lives and, therefore, poor transportability [4]. As a result,
many urban populations reside in areas classied as “food deserts”,
where people do not have ready access to a complete compliment of
required nutrients and depend primarily on heavily processed and
packaged foods [4]. Fresh produce that does reach urban centers has
usually lost substantial nutritional value during transport [5,6]. is
transport consumes 10% of the total energy budget in the United
States [6] and contributes to food waste as it spoils or is contaminated
enroute [1]. is waste comprises the largest component of municipal
waste and is responsible for a large fraction of annual methane
emissions in the United States [6]. erefore, in addition to creating
problems of nutritional excess and insuciency, current food systems
are detrimental to the very environment on which the production of
nutritious food depends [1].
One specic nutritional problem that is common in both developed
and developing countries is mineral malnutrition with over 60% and
30% of the World’s seven billion people, being Fe and Zn decient,
respectively [7]. Rates of mineral malnutrition are especially high in
Asia and Africa [8], where soil degradation is especially severe and has
signicantly decreased the nutritional value of crops [9]. However,
mineral malnutrition is considered to be one of the most important
global challenges to human kind that can be prevented [10] and is one
of the Millennium Development Goals [8]. Current eorts to mitigate
mineral malnourishment are focused on developing biofortication
methods [7] and genetically engineering crops for maximal nutrient
uptake from soils [10].
However, a newly emerging crop that may be a dense source of
nutrition in the absence of biofortication and genetic engineering and
has the potential to be produced in just about any locale is microgreens.
Microgreens (MG’s) are edible seedlings of vegetables, herbs and some
owers that are usually harvested 7-14 days aer germination, when
they have two fully developed cotyledon leaves [11]. MG’s are used
to add texture and avor to various dishes [12] and they are earning
a reputation as dense sources of nutrition even though only a few
studies have examined their vitamin, nutrient and carotenoid contents
[11,13,14]. e potential nutritional benets of MG’s combined with
their ease of cultivation in one’s home has piqued consumer interest in
cultivating MG’s, especially given that they are not widely available for
retail sale. e impact of commonly recommended cultivation methods
Abstract
Current food systems, the collective processes involved in food production, distribution and consumption, create
a dichotomous problem of nutritional excess and insufciency and are not environmentally sustainable. One specic
nutritional problem that needs attention is mineral (e.g., Fe, Zn) malnutrition, which impacts over two-thirds of the World’s
people living in countries of every economic status. Microgreens, the edible cotelydons of many vegetables, owers,
and herbs, is a newly emerging crop that is potentially a dense source of minerals that can be sustainably produced
in almost any locale. In this study, the nutrient contents of lettuce and cabbage microgreens grown hydroponically
(HP) and on vermicompost (C) were assessed and compared to each other as well as to the nutrient contents of
store-bought cabbage and lettuce (mature vegetables). Of the 10 nutrients examined (P, K, S, Ca, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn,
Fe, Na), C cabbage microgreens had signicantly larger quantities of all nutrients than HP cabbage microgreens
(p-values <0.00321) with the exception of P; C lettuce microgreens had signicantly larger quantities of all nutrients
than HP lettuce microgreens (p-values <0.024) except for P, Mg and Cu. Compared to the mature vegetable, C or HP
cabbage microgreens had signicantly larger quantities of all nutrients examined (p-values <0.001) and C or HP lettuce
microgreens had signicantly larger quantities of all nutrients except for Ca and Na (p-values <0.0012). Results of this
study indicate that microgreens grown on vermicompost have greater nutrient contents than those grown hydroponically.
As microgreens can be grown easily in one’s home using the methods used in this study, they may provide a means for
consumer access to larger quantities of nutrients per gram plant biomass relative to store-bought mature vegetables,
which had lower nutrient contents than microgreens with respect to most nutrients examined.

Citation: Weber CF (2016) Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce Microgreens Grown on Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads. J Hortic
3: 190. doi: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
Page 2 of 5
Volume 3 • Issue 4 • 1000190
J Hortic, an open access journal
ISSN: 2376-0354
on the nutritional value of MG’s remains to be assessed, but could assist
consumers in making educated decisions about how to grow MG’s in
their own homes.
is study compares the nutrient content of lettuce and cabbage
MG’s grown on vermicompost and on hydroponic growing pads, both
of which are easily utilized in one’s own home. e nutrient contents
of store-bought cabbage and lettuce (mature vegetables) were also
completed to determine if it may be nutritionally advantageous for
people to eat home-grown MG’s rather than industrially produced
mature vegetables that are commonly available in supermarkets.
Materials and Methods
Growth conditions and harvest
All growing and insert trays, humidity domes and Micro-Mat
Hydroponic Growing Pads used for growing MG’s were obtained from
Handy Pantry (Salt Lake City, UT, USA). All seeds were obtained from
Mountain Valley Seeds (Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Five grams of cabbage
seed (“C”; Brassica oleracea var capitata, Golden Acre) was sowed into
each of eight 5 inch × 5 inch insert trays containing vermicompost (4
insert trays; “C”) or Micro-Mat Hydroponic Growing Pads (four insert
trays; “HP”). Similarly, 42 g of lettuce seed (“L”; Lactuca sativa, Parris
Island Cos) was sowed into four insert trays containing vermicompost
and four insert trays containing Micro-Mat Hydroponic Growing Pads.
Seeds sowed on C were hydrated with sterile deionized water during
the 7-day growth period (a total of 110 mL per insert tray), using sterile
serological pipets in volumes of 15, 25 or 30 mL. Seeds sowed on HP
were hydrated with a 0.4% solution of General Hydroponics® FloraGro®
Advanced Nutrient System® 2-1-6 (“FloraGro”; GH Inc., Sebastopol,
CA, USA), made in sterile deionized water, during the 7-day growth
period (a total of 110 mL per insert tray); hydration was applied in 15,
25 or 45 mL volumes per insert tray using sterile serological pipets.
All 16-insert trays were placed into 10 inch × 20 inch black plastic
growing trays for the duration of the experiment. HP and C insert trays
were maintained in separate growing trays to avoid contaminating C
trays with FloraGro. Growing trays were covered with clear humidity
domes and incubated under constant light produced by GE® Plant
and Aquarium Ecolux Bulbs positioned approximately six inches
above the surface of the growth substrate; light intensity ranged
from 3,790 to 4,920 LUX across the light eld and insert trays were
randomly shied to dierent positions within the light eld each day
(Figure 1). Vermicompost was generated from 0.5 bricks of Eco Earth®
Compressed Coconut Fiber Expandable Reptile Substrate, vegetable
and fruit waste, coee grounds, coee lters and shredded paper in
two Worm Factories housing Eisenia fetida. e Worm Factories were
purchased from and maintained using instructions from Uncle Jim’s
Worm Farm (Spring Grove, PA, USA). Vegetable and fruit waste and
coee grounds and lters were applied to the Worm Factories at a rate
of approximately 0.14 kg per day. Worm Factories were kept indoors
at room temperature. Compost was manually turned every two days.
MG’s were harvested seven days aer sowing using ethanol-
cleaned scissors by cutting the cotyledon stems as close to the growth
substrate as possible. Harvested biomass from each of the 16-insert
trays was placed into pre-weighed foil cups and weighed. e foil cups
were placed into a drying oven at 80oC for 48 h prior to weighing again
to determine the fraction dry mass. Similarly, fraction dry mass was
determined for four samples of cabbage (mature vegetable; CV) and
four samples of romaine lettuce (mature vegetable; LV) purchased
from a local grocer.
Elemental analysis
Dried MG’s and vegetables (2 g per experimental replicate) were
manually ground into a ne powder using a clean mortar and pestle
and placed into clean scintillation vials. Ground material was sent to
the Penn State Agriculture Analytical Services Program (University
Park, PA) for elemental analysis. Each of the samples was subjected to
standard acid digestion procedures to determine the dry mass content
of the following elements: P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na, Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn.
Data analysis
Elemental analysis data was examined by the Shapiro Tests for
normality and Fligner-Kileen Tests for homoscedasticity using R
soware [15]. Based on these results, a nonparametric Welch’s ANOVA
(α=0.05) followed by a Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparisons
was utilized to determine if there were signicant dierences among
the mean nutrient contents of LV, LC and LHP and among the mean
nutrient contents of CV, CC and CHP (α=0.05).
Results and Discussion
Overall, results of this study indicate that vermicompost-grown
MG’s are signicantly more nutrient-rich than hydroponically-grown
MG’s, and that MG’s are relatively dense sources of nutrients relative
to store-bought vegetables (Table 1). Based on nutrient mass per gram
dry plant material, CC MG’s had signicantly larger quantities of all
nutrients than CHP MG’s (all p-values <0.00321) with the exception
of P. LC MG’s had signicantly larger quantities of all nutrients (all
p-values <0.024) than LHP MG’s except for P, Mg and Cu. CC or CHP
MG’s had signicantly larger quantities of all nutrients examined than
CV (all p-values <0.001); LC or LHP MG’s had signicantly greater
quantities of all nutrients than LV (all p-values <0.0012) except for Ca
and Na.
e relative nutritional values of MG’s to mature vegetables on a
nutrient mass per gram fresh plant material are illustrated in Figure 2.
Average ratios across the 10 nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Cu, Zn, Na,
and Fe) indicate that LC, LHP, CC and CHP were 2.8, 2.7, 8.1 and 2.9
times more nutrient-rich than the mature vegetable. Particularly high
nutrient ratios were observed for Fe in cabbage microgreens with CC
having 54.6 times the amount of Fe as the mature vegetable, while CHP
had 5.4 times the amount of Fe as the mature vegetable. For Fe, lettuce
microgreens still contained between 2 and 3 times the amount as the
mature vegetable, but it is clear that cabbage microgreens are able to
acquire far greater amounts of Fe when grown on the same substrates.
For Zn, cabbage microgreens contained between 5 and 7.5 times the
amount of Zn as the mature vegetable. e relatively high levels of Fe
and Zn are of particular interest given the prevalence of deciencies in
these two nutrients across the globe [1,7,9].
Pinto et al. [13] found lettuce MG nutrient contents to be on par
with those previously reported for “baby leaf” lettuce [16], but P, K,
Fe, Cu and Zn contents of lettuce MG’s in this study were between 16
and 98 times higher. is, in combination with the dierences between
the nutrient contents of vermicompost and hydroponically-grown
MG’s found in this study; highlight the signicant eect of cultivation
methods on MG nutrient content.
e average biomass yields (gfw) per experimental replicate (± 1
s.d.; n=4) were as follows: 35.1 g ± 7.6 g (LHP), 26.5 g ± 4.9 g (LC),
38.1 g ± 8.1 g (CC), 21.5 g ± 5.4 g (CHP). As nutritional data for MG’s
is still relatively scarce and MG’s are not widely available products,
established serving sizes do not exist. However, on the basis of serving

Citation: Weber CF (2016) Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce Microgreens Grown on Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads. J Hortic
3: 190. doi: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
Page 3 of 5
Volume 3 • Issue 4 • 1000190
J Hortic, an open access journal
ISSN: 2376-0354
Figure 1: (a) Microgreen growing set-up. Humidity domes were removed for the purpose of taking the photo. (b) Lettuce microgreens in 5 inch × 5 inch growing trays
just prior to harvest, 7-days after sowing.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0P K Ca Mg S Mn Cu Zn Na
Lc
LHP
CC
CHP
microgreen mature vegetable nutrient ratio
Fe
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 2: Microgreen: mature vegetable nutrient ratio based on mass of nutrient per gfw plant material for P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Cu, Zn, Na (left) and Fe (right). Note
the different scale on the y-axis for the two graphs. For both graphs, horizontal lines at a microgreen: mature vegetable ratio: 1 indicate where nutrient values of
microgreens and mature vegetables are equivalent. LC: Lettuce microgreens grown on vermicompost; LHP: Lettuce microgreens grown hydroponically; CC: Cabbage
microgreens grown on vermicompost; CHP: Cabbage microgreens grown hydroponically. Symbols plotted are listed on the legend on the graph.
sizes for lettuce and cabbage vegetables and the relative nutrient
contents of MG’s to these mature vegetables, estimates of serving sizes
can be made. e serving sizes for mature lettuce and cabbage are 91
g and 89 g, respectively [17]. On the basis of the average microgreen:
vegetable nutrient ratios for LC, LHP, CC and CHP (2.8, 2.7, 8.1
and 2.9, respectively), microgreen serving sizes that are nutritionally
equivalent to the mature vegetable servings can be calculated as: 32.5 g
(LC), 33.7 g (LHP), 11 g (CC), 30.7 g (CHP). is indicates that a single
5 inch × 5 inch growing tray produces the following number of MG
servings based on fresh mass yields in this study: 1 (LHP), 0.8 (LC), 3.5
(CC), 0.7 (CHP).
MG’s can be grown easily in one’s home via the methods used in
this study. erefore, results presented here indicate that MG’s could
provide a means for consumer-access to larger quantities of nutrients
per gram plant biomass relative to store-bought mature vegetables.
e hydroponic mats utilized are compostable and may be especially
convenient for consumers who wish to grow MG’s in relatively small
urban dwellings and avoid purchasing or working with a soil matrix.

Citation: Weber CF (2016) Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce Microgreens Grown on Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads. J Hortic
3: 190. doi: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
Page 4 of 5
Volume 3 • Issue 4 • 1000190
J Hortic, an open access journal
ISSN: 2376-0354
However, compostable waste is produced by every household and
includes “unavoidable waste” from fruit and vegetables that is nutrient
rich, but comprises a large amount of fresh mass that goes uneaten.
An example of such unavoidable food waste is banana peels, which
make up about 40% of the fruit’s fresh weight [18], and contain 45,000
and 64,000 mg potassium (Kg dry mass)-1 [19]. Growing MG’s in the
vermicompost generated from such unavoidable food waste provides
a mechanism for recapturing some of these nutrients in plant biomass
for human consumption rather than having it lost to a landll. e
MG ability to acquire micronutrients from vermicompost that had
been made bioavailable via decomposition of nutrient rich-food wastes
is likely responsible for the higher levels of some nutrients in the
compost-grown MG’s than in the hydroponically-grown MG’s. e
hydroponic fertilizer solution used in this study was an N, P, K-based
fertilizer; although it contains trace elements, their availability for
plant uptake was not as great as it was in the vermicompost utilized.
e ability of vermicompost to improve plant growth when added to
growth matrix has been documented previously, but its impact can
vary tremendously depending on the materials being composted (e.g.,
fruits and vegetables, manure, sewage sludge; [20]). Additionally, the
microbial community composition and activity in vermicompost can
also dramatically aect plant growth [20]. Nutrient quantities and
microbial properties of the vermicompost were not assessed in this
study, as the focus was to examine whether or not the two growing
methods yielded MG’s with dierent nutrient contents. However, given
the dierences in the nutrient contents of MG’s grown hydroponically
or on vermicompost, a more detailed study that examines the nutrient
and microbial properties of the vermicompost is warranted. e ability
of microbial communities to enhance MG growth is intriguing because
the HP treatment in this study likely contained far fewer microbes than
the vermicompost treatment [21].
Conclusion
Results of this study indicate that, on average, MG’s grown
on vermicompost had greater nutrient contents than those grown
hydroponically. However, MG’s, irrespective of growing method, had
greater average nutrient contents than store-bought mature vegetables.
As microgreens can be grown easily in one’s home using the two
methods used in this study, they may provide a means for consumer
access to larger quantities of nutrients per gram plant biomass relative
to store-bought mature vegetables. Simultaneously, growing and
consuming MG’s could reduce consumer need to rely on industrialized
food systems, which involve environmentally damaging processes (i.e.,
fertilizer application, high water use, long transport chains [1]).
Acknowledgements
I thank BIOL2207 students at Idaho State University (Spring 2016), Emily
Baergen, Cassie Thibeault and the Department of Biological Sciences for making
this work possible. This project was funded by student laboratory course fees. This
work is dedicated to the memory of Myrtle C. Bart, a horticulturist who was ahead
of her time. The author declares no conicts of interest.
References
1. Sachs JD (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia. University
Press, NY, USA, pp: 317-353.
2. Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. P
Nutr Soc 72: 29-39.
3. Remans R, Wood SA, Saha N, Anderman TL, DeFries RS (2014) Measuring
nutritional diversity of national food supplies. Global Food Sec 3: 174-182.
4. Walker RE, Keane CR, Burke JG (2010) Disparities and access to healthy food
in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place 16:
876-884.
5. Rickman JC, Barrett DM, Bruhn CM (2007) Nutritional comparison of fresh,
frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part 1 Vitamins C and B and phenolic
compounds. J Sci Food Agr 87: 930-944.
6. Gunders D (2012) Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food
from farm to fork to landll. National Resources Defense Council Issue Paper.
7. White PJ, Broadley MR (2009) Biofortication of crops with seven mineral
elements often lacking in human diets-iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium,
selenium and iodine. New Phytologist 182: 49-84.
8. Muthayya S, Rah JH, Sugimoto JD, Roos FF, Kraemer K, et al. (2013) The
global hidden hunger indices and maps: an advocacy tool for action. PLoS
ONE.
Element
Lettuce Cabbage
LV LHP LC CV CHP CC
mg (gdw)-1
P5.58
(0.43)a
13.34
(0.43)b
8.66
(1.24)c
1.28
(0.07)a
14.76
(0.42)b
12.95
(0.27)c
K41.06
(2.63)a
13.92
(1.77)b
60.14
(6.23)c
24.22
(1.04)a
12.34
(0.99)b
42.99
(2.55)c
Ca 8.48
(1.67)a
2.61
(0.19)b
8.50
(0.88)a
2.93
(0.36)a
7.88
(0.11)b
13.22
(0.27)c
Mg 3.49
(0.50)a
6.48
(0.25)b
5.78
(0.08)c
0.90
(0.02)a
4.75
(0.09)b
5.82
(0.05)c
S2.76
(0.23)a
4.48
(0.16)b
5.89
(0.72)c
5.74
(0.19)a
15.77
(0.49)b
19.39
(0.69)c
Na 5.02
(0.47)a
1.80
(0.41)b
2.71
(0.21)c
1.07
(0.02)a
2.61
(0.25)b
3.49
(0.12)c
µg (gdw)-1
Mn 28.99
(3.64)a
48.61
(3.10)a
118.03
(38.59)b
34.34
(1.36)a
41.84
(1.16)b
64.96
(2.77)c
Fe 99.59
(12.57)a
232.75
(46.50)a
2327.45
(916.94)c
21.83
(3.03)a
121.35
(9.02)b
187.19
(32.72)c
Cu 9.44
(1.24)a
21.22
(0.92)b
17.49
(0.74)c
1.42
(0.30)a
3.69
(0.21)b
5.07
(0.10)c
Zn 42.65
(4.69)a
143.49
(7.15)b
200.97
(31.95)c
13.84
(0.71)a
60.78
(2.79)b
160.02
(4.97)c
Table 1: Average nutrient content (n=4, (standard deviation)), for lettuce vegetable (LV), hydroponically grown lettuce microgreens (LHP), vermicompost-grown lettuce
microgreens (LC), cabbage vegetable (CV), hydroponically-grown cabbage microgreens (CHP) and vermicompost-grown cabbage microgreens (CC). The average fraction
dry masses (standard deviation) were as follows: 0.059 (0.009), LHP; 0.060 (0.007), LC; 0.056 (0.002), LV; 0.096 (0.016), CHP; 0.070 (0.006), CC; 0.120 (0.002), CV.
Small letters denote signicance (α=0.05) of statistical comparisons among LV, LC and LHP nutrient contents and comparisons among CV, CC and CHP nutrient contents.

Citation: Weber CF (2016) Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce Microgreens Grown on Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads. J Hortic
3: 190. doi: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
Page 5 of 5
Volume 3 • Issue 4 • 1000190
J Hortic, an open access journal
ISSN: 2376-0354
9. Lal R (2009) Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food
Secur 1: 45-57.
10. Grusack MA (2002) Enhancing mineral content in plant food products. J Am
Coll Nutr 21: 178S-183S.
11. Xiao ZL, Lester GE, Luo YG, Wang Q (2012) Assessment of vitamin and
carotenoid concentrations of emerging food products: edible microgreens. J
Agric Food Chem 60: 7644-7651.
12. Treadwell DD, Hochmuth R, Landrum L, Laughlin W (2010) Microgreens: A
New Specialty Crop. University of Florida, IFAS Extension HS1164.
13. Pinto E, Almeida AA, Aguiar AA, Ferreira IMPLVO (2015) Comparison between
the mineral prole and nitrate content of microgreens and mature lettuces. J
Food Compos Anal 37: 38-43.
14. Sun JH, Xiao ZL, Lin LZ, Lester GE, Wang Q, et al. (2013) Proling polyphenols
in ve brassica species microgreens by UHPLC-PDA-ESI/ HRMS(n.). J Agric
Food Chem 61: 10960-10970.
15. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
16. Santos J, Oliva-Teles MT, Delerue-Matos C, Oliveira MBPP (2014) Multi-
elemental analysis of ready-to-eat “baby leaf” vegetables using microwave
digestion and high-resolution continuum source atomic absorption
spectrometry. Food Chem 151: 311-316.
17. http://nutritiondata.self.com/
18. Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste
management: Engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill,
NY, USA, pp: 3-22.
19. Emaga TH, Andrianaivo RH, Wathelet B, Tchango JT, Paquot M (2007) Effects
of the stage of maturation and varieties on the chemical composition of banana
and plantain peels. Food Chem 103: 590-600.
20. Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Bachman G, Metzger JD, et al. (2000)
Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural
container media and soil. Pedo Biol 44: 579-590.
21. Miller DD, Welch RM (2013) Food system strategies for preventing mineral
malnutrition. Food Pol 42: 115-128.
Citation: Weber CF (2016) Nutrient Content of Cabbage and Lettuce
Microgreens Grown on Vermicompost and Hydroponic Growing Pads. J Hortic
3: 190. doi: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000190
OMICS International: Open Access Publication Benefits &
Features
Unique features:
• Increased global visibility of articles through worldwide distribution and indexing
• Showcasing recent research output in a timely and updated manner
• Special issues on the current trends of scientic research
Special features:
• 700+ Open Access Journals
• 50,000+ editorial team
• Rapid review process
• Quality and quick editorial, review and publication processing
• Indexing at major indexing services
• Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled
• Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientic Credits
• Better discount for your subsequent articles
Submit your manuscript at: http://www.omicsonline.org/submission