1
|
Sarmikasoglou E, Sumadong P, Roesch LFW, Halima S, Arriola K, Yuting Z, Jeong KCC, Vyas D, Hikita C, Watanabe T, Faciola A. Effects of cashew nut shell extract and monensin on in vitro ruminal fermentation, methane production, and ruminal bacterial community. J Dairy Sci 2024; 107:840-856. [PMID: 37730175 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2023-23669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/22/2023]
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of cashew nut shell extract (CNSE) and monensin on ruminal in vitro fermentation, CH4 production, and ruminal bacterial community structure. Treatments were as follows: control (CON, basal diet without additives); 2.5 μM monensin (MON); 0.1 mg CNSE granule/g DM (CNSE100); and 0.2 mg CNSE granule/g DM (CNSE200). Each treatment was incubated with 52 mL of buffered ruminal content and 500 mg of total mixed ration for 24 h using serum vials. The experiment was performed as a complete randomized block design with 3 runs. Run was used as a blocking factor. Each treatment had 5 replicates, in which 2 were used to determine nutrient degradability, and 3 were used to determine pH, NH3-N, volatile fatty acids, lactate, total gas, CH4 production, and bacterial community composition. Treatment responses for all data, excluding bacterial abundance, were analyzed with the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS v9.4. Treatment responses for bacterial community structure were analyzed with a PERMANOVA test run with the R package vegan. Orthogonal contrasts were used to test the effects of (1) additive inclusion (ADD: CON vs. MON, CNSE100, and CNSE200); (2) additive type (MCN: MON vs. CNSE100 and CNSE200); and (3) CNSE dose (DOS: CNSE100 vs. CNSE200). We observed that pH, acetate, and acetate:propionate ratio in the CNSE100 treatment were lower compared with CNSE200, and propionate in the CNSE100 treatment was greater compared with CNSE200. Compared with MON, CNSE treatments tended to decrease total lactate concentration. Total gas production of CON was greater by 2.63% compared with all treatments, and total CH4 production was reduced by 10.64% in both CNSE treatments compared with MON. Also, compared with MON, in vitro dry matter degradabilities in CNSE treatments were lower. No effects were observed for NH3-N or in vitro neutral detergent fiber degradability. Finally, the relative abundances of Prevotella, Treponema, and Schwartzia were lower, whereas the relative abundances of Butyrivibrio and Succinivibrio were greater in all treatments compared with CON. Overall, the inclusion of CNSE decreased CH4 production compared with MON, making CNSE a possible CH4 mitigation additive in dairy cattle diets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Sarmikasoglou
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - P Sumadong
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Department of Animal Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
| | - L F W Roesch
- Department of Microbiology and Cell Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32603
| | - S Halima
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - K Arriola
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - Z Yuting
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - K C C Jeong
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - D Vyas
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - C Hikita
- SDS Biotech K.K., Tokyo, Japan 101-0022
| | | | - A Faciola
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Oyebade AO, Lee S, Sultana H, Arriola K, Duvalsaint E, Nino De Guzman C, Fernandez Marenchino I, Marroquin Pacheco L, Amaro F, Ghedin Ghizzi L, Mu L, Guan H, Almeida KV, Rajo Andrade B, Zhao J, Tian P, Cheng C, Jiang Y, Driver J, Queiroz O, Ferraretto LF, Ogunade IM, Adesogan AT, Vyas D. Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on performance and immune parameters of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2023; 106:8611-8626. [PMID: 37641244 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2022-22898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 05/29/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023]
Abstract
We evaluated the effects of supplementing bacterial direct-fed microbial (DFM) on performance, apparent total-tract digestibility, rumen fermentation, and immune parameters of lactating dairy cows. One hundred fourteen multiparous Holstein cows (41 ± 7 DIM) were used in a randomized complete block design with an experiment comprising 14 d of a covariate (pre-experimental sample and data collection) and 91 d of an experimental period. Cows were blocked based on energy-corrected milk (ECM) yield during the covariate period and the following treatments were randomly assigned within each block: (1) control (CON), corn silage-based total mixed ration without DFM; (2) PRO-A, basal diet top-dressed with a mixture of Lactobacillus animalis and Propionibacterium freudenreichii at 3 × 109 cfu/d; and 3) PRO-B, basal diet top-dressed with a mixture of L. animalis, P. freudenreichii, Bacillus subtilis, and Bacillus licheniformis at 11.8 × 109 cfu/d. Milk yield, dry matter intake (DMI), and body weight were measured daily, while milk samples for component analysis were taken on 2 consecutive days of each week of data collection. Feces, urine, rumen, and blood samples were taken during the covariate period, wk 4, 7, 10, and 13 for estimation of digestibility, N-partitioning, rumen fermentation, plasma nutrient status and immune parameters. Treatments had no effect on DMI and milk yield. Fat-corrected milk (3.5% FCM) and milk fat yield were improved with PRO-B, while milk fat percent and feed efficiency (ECM/DMI) tended to increase with PRO-B compared with PRO-A and CON. Crude fat digestibility was greater with PRO-B compared with CON. Feeding CON and PRO-A resulted in higher total volatile fatty acid concentration relative to PRO-B. Percentage of neutrophils tended to be reduced with PRO-A compared with CON and PRO-B. The mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of anti-CD44 antibody on granulocytes tended to be higher in PRO-B compared with CON. The MFI of anti-CD62L antibody on CD8+ T cells was lower in PRO-A than PRO-B, with PRO-A also showing a tendency to be lower than CON. This study indicates the potential of DFM to improve fat digestibility with consequential improvement in fat corrected milk yield, feed efficiency and milk fat yield by lactating dairy cows. The study findings also indicate that dietary supplementation with DFM may augment immune parameters or activation of immune cells, including granulocytes and T cells; however, the overall effects on immune parameters are inconclusive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A O Oyebade
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - S Lee
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - H Sultana
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - K Arriola
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - E Duvalsaint
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - C Nino De Guzman
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - I Fernandez Marenchino
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - L Marroquin Pacheco
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - F Amaro
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - L Ghedin Ghizzi
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - L Mu
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - H Guan
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - K V Almeida
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - B Rajo Andrade
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - J Zhao
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - P Tian
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - C Cheng
- College of Agriculture, Communities, and the Environment, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601
| | - Y Jiang
- College of Agriculture, Communities, and the Environment, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601
| | - J Driver
- MU Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211
| | - O Queiroz
- Chr. Hansen A/S, Animal Health and Nutrition, B⊘ge Allé 10-12, DK-2970 H⊘rsholm, Denmark
| | - L F Ferraretto
- Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706
| | - I M Ogunade
- Division of Animal and Nutritional Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506
| | - A T Adesogan
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - D Vyas
- Department of Animal Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Amaro FX, Kim D, Restelatto R, Carvalho P, Arriola K, Duvalsaint EJC, Cervantes AP, Jiang Y, Agarussi MCN, Silva VP, Adesogan AT, Ferraretto LF, Staples CR, Eun JS, Moon JO, Vyas D. Lactational performance of dairy cows in response to supplementing N-acetyl-l-methionine as source of rumen-protected methionine. J Dairy Sci 2021; 105:2301-2314. [PMID: 34955263 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2021-21068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of supplementing a rumen-protected source of Met, N-acetyl-l-methionine (NALM), on lactational performance and nitrogen metabolism in early- to mid-lactation dairy cows. Sixty multiparous Holstein dairy cows in early lactation (27 ± 4.3 d in milk, SD) were assigned to 4 treatments in a randomized complete block design. Cows were blocked by actual milk yield. Treatments were as follows: (1) no NALM (control); (2) 15 g/d of NALM (NALM15); (3) 30 g/d of NALM (NALM30); and (4) 45 g/d of NALM (NALM45). Diets were formulated using a Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) v.6.5 model software to meet or exceed nutritional requirements of lactating dairy cows producing 42 kg/d of milk and to undersupply metabolizable Met (control) or supply incremental amounts of NALM. The digestible Met (dMet) supply for control, NALM15, NALM30, and NALM45 were 54.7, 59.8, 64.7, and 72.2 g/d, respectively. The supply of dMet was 88, 94, 104, and 115% of dMet requirement for control, NALM15, NALM30, and NALM45, respectively. Milk yield data were collected, dry matter intake (DMI) was measured daily, and milk samples were collected twice per week for 22 wk. Blood, ruminal fluid, urine, and fecal samples were collected during the covariate period and during wk 4, 8, and 16. Data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (SAS Institute) using covariates in the model for all variables except body weight. Linear, quadratic, and cubic contrasts were also tested. Treatments did not affect DMI, milk yield, and milk component concentration and yield; however, feed efficiency expressed as milk yield per DMI and 3.5% fat-corrected milk per DMI were quadratically affected, with greater response observed for NALM15 and NALM30 compared with control. Acetate proportion linearly increased, whereas propionate proportion linearly decreased with NALM supplementation. Blood urea nitrogen linearly decreased with NALM supplementation. Total plasma essential AA concentrations were quadratically affected, as greater values were observed for control and NALM45 than other treatments. Plasma Met concentration was quadratically affected as lower levels were observed with NALM15, whereas Met concentrations increased with NALM45 compared with control. Nitrogen utilization efficiency and apparent total-tract nutrient digestibility were not affected by treatment. Supplementation of NALM at 15 or 30 g/head per day resulted in the greatest improvements in feed efficiency without affecting N metabolism of early- to mid-lactation dairy cows.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F X Amaro
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - D Kim
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - R Restelatto
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611; Universidade Federal do Parana, Curitiba, PR, 80060, Brazil
| | - P Carvalho
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611; Institute of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Sinop, MT, 78557, Brazil
| | - K Arriola
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - E J C Duvalsaint
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - A P Cervantes
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - Y Jiang
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - M C N Agarussi
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611; Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Vicosa, MG, 36570, Brazil
| | - V P Silva
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611; Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Vicosa, MG, 36570, Brazil
| | - A T Adesogan
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - L F Ferraretto
- Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706
| | - C R Staples
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - J-S Eun
- BIO Research Institute, CJ CheilJedang, Suwon, 04560, South Korea
| | - J O Moon
- BIO Research Institute, CJ CheilJedang, Suwon, 04560, South Korea
| | - D Vyas
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.
| |
Collapse
|