Next Article in Journal
Genetic Diversity and Selection Signatures of Lvliang Black Goat Using Genome-Wide SNP Data
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Evaluation of Monthly Test-Day Milk Yields of Jersey Crossbred Cattle Under Farmers’ Production System in Tamil Nadu, India
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Dietary Benzoic Acid Supplementation on Growth Performance, Rumen Fermentation, and Rumen Microbiota in Weaned Holstein Dairy Calves
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Nutritional Value Evaluation and Processing Technology of Feed and Nutrition Regulation Measures for Ruminants

1
Yuelushan Laboratory, College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
2
College of Life Science, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(21), 3153; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14213153
Submission received: 13 September 2024 / Accepted: 30 October 2024 / Published: 2 November 2024

1. Introduction

In the context of modern livestock farming, particularly in the ruminant industry, feed is a crucial factor that affects both the efficiency of production and animal health. Over the last decade, rising feed costs, driven by factors such as increased demand, raw material shortages, and global crises such as COVID-19, have posed significant challenges to the cattle and sheep farming industries. Feed expenses make up the largest part of production costs, and the price of essential feed ingredients such as corn has surged, placing increased economic pressure on farmers [1]. Thus, understanding the nutritional value of alternative feed sources and improving feed processing technologies is essential in order to enhance the productivity, product quality, and sustainability of livestock.
High-concentrate diets are often rich in carbohydrates. When ruminants consume these diets, volatile fatty acids (VFAs) such as acetic, propionic, and butyric acids are produced in the rumen through microbial fermentation. However, the absorption capacity of the rumen wall is limited, leading to the accumulation of VFAs, which lowers the pH of the rumen and triggers subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) [2]. The prolonged consumption of high-concentrate diets increases the risk of SARA, disrupting rumen metabolism and impairing normal rumen function, leading to a reduction in production. Therefore, it is crucial to mitigate SARA through strategies such as the bioconversion of unconventional feeds and the use of plant extracts to prevent the negative effects associated with high-concentrate diets.

2. Feed Ingredients and Nutritional Value

The nutritional value of feed varies significantly depending on its source, variety, and processing methods. The quality of forage, including its fiber content, digestibility, and nutrient availability, plays a critical role in the overall health and productivity of ruminants [3]. High-quality forage promotes enhanced digestion and nutrient absorption, ensuring that livestock can maintain optimal health and performance levels. On the other hand, poor-quality feed leads to digestive problems and reduced productivity, which can result in significant economic losses [4]. In contrast, feeding overly mature grasses to ruminants increases the production of methane, which is strongly correlated with the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio in grasses [5,6]. Additionally, the nutrient content of different forages can affect the production of methane post-feeding [7]. Leguminous forages produce less methane than grasses, as the condensed tannins in legumes significantly impact the degradation of fiber and dry matter [8,9,10,11]. Not only does the quality of forage affect methane emissions, but different processing methods can also influence the production of methane in ruminants. For example, treatments such as ammonization, crushing, pelletizing, and ensiling have been shown to reduce methane emissions to varying degrees [12]. This reduction is likely due to an increase in the levels of non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) after ensiling, which lowers the NDF content and promotes the production of propionic acid in the rumen while reducing acetic acid; thus, methane synthesis is decreased [13,14]. Furthermore, high-concentrate diets, which are commonly used in intensive ruminant production, are rich in carbohydrates. Therefore, evaluating the nutritional value of feed ingredients and formulating balanced diets that prevent digestive disturbances are crucial to ensuring the well-being of ruminants.

3. Feed Processing Technology

The processing of feed plays a pivotal role in maintaining or even enhancing its nutritional quality. Technologies such as ensiling, pelleting, and steam-flaking can help preserve nutrients and enhance the efficiency of feed [15]. For instance, ensiling is a method used to preserve forage crops via fermentation, which not only extends the shelf life of feed but also enhances its digestibility by breaking down fiber components [16]. Advances in feed processing have enabled the enhanced utilization of alternative feed ingredients, thus mitigating the high costs associated with conventional feed materials.
Moreover, bioconversion techniques, including the microbial fermentation of unconventional feedstuffs, have gained attention due to their ability to enhance the value of feed while reducing dependence on traditional, high-cost ingredients [17]. This method can transform low-nutrient materials into more digestible and nutritionally valuable feed through the action of microbes, making it an attractive option for sustainable livestock farming.

4. Nutrition Regulation Measures

To address the challenges posed by high-concentrate diets, various nutritional regulation strategies have been explored. One approach involves the use of plant extracts and essential oils as natural additives to prevent the negative effects of rumen acidosis. These additives have been shown to modulate rumen fermentation patterns, promoting the production of beneficial VFAs while reducing methane emissions [18]. This not only enhances the health of the rumen, but also contributes to environmental sustainability by mitigating the greenhouse gas emitted from livestock [19].
Another promising nutritional regulation strategy is the integration of precision feeding techniques. This involves the use of real-time monitoring systems to adjust the composition and delivery of feed based on the requirements of individual animals [20]. Precision feeding can optimize the utilization of nutrients, improve the performance of animals, and reduce waste, leading to a more efficient and sustainable production system.

4.1. Unconventional Feeds for Ruminants

Unconventional feed resources possess unique nutritional qualities, but are associated with various challenges; these include processing difficulties, high transportation costs, susceptibility to deterioration, poor palatability, the presence of anti-nutritional factors, strong seasonality, and limited geographical availability. To maximize their benefits, these resources must be developed rationally and used in a scientifically sound manner. For example, the dietary supplementation of DHA-rich microalgae improved the antioxidant status, increased the deposition of DHA and enhanced the characteristic flavor of beef [21]. Silva found that partially substituting corn silage with whole soybean silage or black oat silage reduced the intake of feed while increasing rumination and chewing activities in cows, without compromising growth performance [22]. Similarly, Zhang et al. reported that sweet straw and wheat straw could serve as more affordable alternatives to whole-plant corn silage (WPCS) for fattening beef cattle, without significantly diminishing the economic returns [23]. Additionally, the inclusion of whole pomegranate byproducts in sheep diets, replacing traditional grain feed, improved the antioxidant capacity of the meat, likely due to the presence of vitamin E in the pomegranate byproducts [24].

4.2. Applied Plant Extract

A recent study using rumen simulation technology evaluated the effects of chito-oligosaccharides (COS) (0.02%, 0.04%, 0.08%) on the diets of beef cattle. The results showed that COS increased the disappearance rates of dry matter DM, crude protein (CP), ether extract, and acid detergent fiber, while raising the pH, microbial CP, and concentrations of propionate and butyrate. It also reduced the production of gas, NH3-N, the A/P ratio, and the acetate, isobutyrate, valerate, and protozoa counts, shifting fermentation from an acetate to a propionate mode. COS did not change the overall diversity of the microbiota but increased the relative abundance of Methanosphaera, Ruminococcus, Endomycobium, and Eubacterium [25].
In vitro experiments were conducted by adding mixtures of Firmwood tannin and chestnut tannin to forage and hay. The addition of these tannin mixtures to hay significantly reduced the acetic acid-to-propionic acid ratio; after 24 h, the CO2/CH4 ratio increased notably with 30 g/kg of mixed tannins. While the addition of mixed tannins to hay significantly lowered the production of ammonia, no such effect was observed in forage. Mixed tannins also protected against the degradation of protein in the rumen, particularly under low-protein conditions; this was possibly due to the expansion of the binding spectrum [26]. Furthermore, the addition of 1% and 2% Neolamarckia cadamba leaf extracts significantly reduced the production of CH4 and increased the digestibility of dry matter, although it did not affect the concentrations of VFAs. While the microbial community of the rumen was largely unaffected, the extracts significantly decreased the relative abundance of Methanobacterium. This reduction in methane-producing bacteria was positively correlated with a reduction in the production of CH4 in the rumen [27].

5. Conclusions

The rising cost of feed and the challenges associated with maintaining ruminant health in intensive production systems necessitate a comprehensive approach to evaluating the nutritional value of feed and processing technologies. By leveraging bioconversion methods, improving the quality of feed, and implementing effective nutrition regulation measures, the ruminant industry can achieve enhanced productivity and sustainability. Further research is needed to develop innovative feed solutions and nutritional strategies that not only enhance animal performance but also reduce the environmental impact of livestock farming.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jones, A.; Smith, R. The impact of feed costs on livestock production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2022, 265, 114–125. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zebeli, Q.; Dijkstra, J.; Tafaj, M.; Steingass, H.; Ametaj, B.; Drochner, W. Modeling the Adequacy of Dietary Fiber in Dairy Cows Based on the Responses of Ruminal pH and Milk Fat Production to Composition of the Diet. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 2046–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. De Brito, G.F.; McGrath, S.R.; Holman, B.W.; Friend, M.A.; Fowler, S.M.; van de Ven, R.J.; Hopkins, D.L. The effect of forage type on lamb carcass traits, meat quality and sensory traits. Meat Sci. 2016, 119, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wilson, T.; Moore, C. Forage quality and its implications on livestock performance. Livest. Prod. Rev. 2020, 45, 210–218. [Google Scholar]
  5. Himanshu, H.; Murphy, J.; Grant, J.; O’Kiely, P. Synergies from co-digesting grass or clover silages with cattle slurry in in vitro batch anaerobic digestion. Renew. Energy 2018, 127, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cole, N.; Meyer, B.; Parker, D.; Neel, J.; Turner, K.; Northup, B.; Jennings, T.; Jennings, J. Effects of diet quality on energy metabolism and methane production by beef steers fed a warm-season grass-based hay diet. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 36, 652–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eugène, M.; Klumpp, K.; Sauvant, D. Methane mitigating options with forages fed to ruminants. Grass Forage Sci. 2021, 76, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Waghorn, G.C.; McNabb, W.C. Consequences of plant phenolic compounds for productivity and health of ruminants. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2003, 62, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Patra, A.K. A meta-analysis on effects of supplementing diets with tannins on methane production and nitrogen excretion in ruminants. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2014, 98, 102–116. [Google Scholar]
  10. Beauchemin, K.A.; Kreuzer, M.; O’Mara, F.; McAllister, T.A. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tiemann, T.T.; Lascano, C.E.; Wettstein, H.-R.; Mayer, A.C.; Kreuzer, M.; Hess, H.D. Effect of the tropical tannin-rich shrub legumes Calliandra calothyrsus and Flemingia macrophylla on methane emission and nitrogen and energy balance in growing lambs. Animal 2008, 2, 790–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boadi, D.A.; Wittenberg, K.M.; Scott, S.L.; Burton, D.; Buckley, K.; Small, J.A.; Ominski, K.H. Effect of low and high forage diet on enteric and manure pack greenhouse gas emissions from a feedlot. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 84, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martin, C.; Ferlay, A.; Mosoni, P.; Rochette, Y.; Chilliard, Y.; Doreau, M. Increasing linseed supply in dairy cow diets based on hay or corn silage: Effect on enteric methane emission, rumen microbial fermentation, and digestion. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 3445–3456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hammond, K.; Jones, A.; Humphries, D.; Crompton, L.; Reynolds, C. Effects of diet forage source and neutral detergent fiber content on milk production of dairy cattle and methane emissions determined using GreenFeed and respiration chamber techniques. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 7904–7917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zhang, L.; Liu, H. Advances in feed processing technologies for ruminants. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 137–144. [Google Scholar]
  16. Miller, R.; Davis, P. The effects of silage processing on feed quality. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 18, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
  17. Green, J.; Miller, S. Bioconversion of unconventional feedstuffs in livestock diets. Sustain. Agric. 2019, 23, 67–75. [Google Scholar]
  18. Arowolo, M.A.; He, J. Use of probiotics and botanical extracts to improve ruminant production in the tropics: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 241–249. [Google Scholar]
  19. Smith, G.; Brown, H. Methane mitigation strategies in ruminant livestock. Environ. Sustain. Agric. 2020, 32, 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  20. Carter, A.; Thomas, E. Precision feeding in ruminant livestock: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 269, 116–127. [Google Scholar]
  21. Xu, C.; Zhang, S.; Sun, B.; Xie, P.; Liu, X.; Chang, L.; Lu, F.; Zhang, S. Dietary Supplementation with Microalgae (Schizochytrium sp.) Improves the Antioxidant Status, Fatty Acids Profiles and Volatile Compounds of Beef. Animals 2021, 11, 3517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Silva, L.H.; Assis, D.E.; Estrada, M.M.; Assis, G.J.; Zamudio, G.D.; Carneiro, G.B.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Paulino, M.F.; Chizzotti, M.L. Carcass and meat quality traits of Nellore young bulls and steers throughout fattening. Livest. Sci. 2019, 229, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, H.; Zhang, L.; Xue, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Gao, T.; Phillips, C. Effect of feeding a diet comprised of various corn silages inclusion with peanut vine or wheat straw on performance, digestion, serum parameters and meat nutrients in finishing beef cattle. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Natalello, A.; Priolo, A.; Valenti, B.; Codini, M.; Mattioli, S.; Pauselli, M.; Puccio, M.; Lanza, M.; Stergiadis, S.; Luciano, G. Dietary pomegranate by-product improves oxidative stability of lamb meat. Meat Sci. 2020, 162, 108037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. He, J.; Li, J.; Gao, Q.; Shen, W.; Liu, W.; Xia, M.; Xiao, H.; Xiao, D. In Vitro Evaluation of Chito-Oligosaccharides on Disappearance Rate of Nutrients, Rumen Fermentation Parameters, and Micro-Flora of Beef Cattle. Animals 2024, 14, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Menci, R.; Coppa, M.; Torrent, A.; Natalello, A.; Valenti, B.; Luciano, G.; Priolo, A.; Niderkorn, V. Effects of two tannin extracts at different doses in interaction with a green or dry forage substrate on rumen fermentation and biohydrogenation-an in vitro study. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 278, 114977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Q.; Wu, S.; Zou, X.; Ruan, S.; Kholif, A.E.; Hu, L.; Chen, X.; Zhou, W. Effects of Neolamarckia cadamba leaves extract on methanogenesis, microbial community in the rumen and digestibility of stylo silage. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiao, D.; Meng, T. Nutritional Value Evaluation and Processing Technology of Feed and Nutrition Regulation Measures for Ruminants. Animals 2024, 14, 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14213153

AMA Style

Xiao D, Meng T. Nutritional Value Evaluation and Processing Technology of Feed and Nutrition Regulation Measures for Ruminants. Animals. 2024; 14(21):3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14213153

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiao, Dingfu, and Tiantian Meng. 2024. "Nutritional Value Evaluation and Processing Technology of Feed and Nutrition Regulation Measures for Ruminants" Animals 14, no. 21: 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14213153

APA Style

Xiao, D., & Meng, T. (2024). Nutritional Value Evaluation and Processing Technology of Feed and Nutrition Regulation Measures for Ruminants. Animals, 14(21), 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14213153

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop