Next Article in Journal
Pressure-Sensitive Walkway System for Evaluation of Lameness in Dogs Affected by Unilateral Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture Treated with Porous Tibial Tuberosity Advancement
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Giardia duodenalis on the Occurrence of Clinical Signs in Dogs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fetal Programming and Its Effects on Meat Quality of Nellore Bulls
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/vetsci10120695
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the In Vitro and In Vivo Effect of Supplementation with a Garlic (Allium sativum) and Oregano (Origanum vulgare) Essential Oil Mixture on Digestibility in West African Sheep

by
Olga Teresa Barreto-Cruz
1,*,
Juan Carlos Henao Zambrano
1,
Roman David Castañeda-Serrano
2 and
Lina Maria Peñuela Sierra
2
1
Block 5 Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science Program, Department of Animal Production, University Cooperative of Colombia, Ibague 730003, Colombia
2
Department of Animal Production, University of Tolima, Santa Helena 42 Street n 2, Ibague 730006, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2023, 10(12), 695; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10120695
Submission received: 14 September 2023 / Revised: 5 October 2023 / Accepted: 13 November 2023 / Published: 7 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Nutrition on Ruminants Production Performance and Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In ruminants, fermentation control plays a crucial role in optimizing feed utilization efficiency and reducing methane emissions. Traditional approaches involving antibiotics and feed additives have been used to modify ruminal fermentation, contributing to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in humans. The use of essential oils as natural additives could potentially replace antibiotics and synthetic feed additives, promoting sustainability in livestock production. The objective of the present study was to determine the optimal dosage of a mixture of garlic and oregano essential oils as feed additives in improving ruminal fermentation. The results showed significant improvements in digestibility with the inclusion of essential oils. Garlic and oregano essential oils have the potential to modulate ruminal fermentation, improving productivity while reducing the reliance on antibiotics. These findings highlight the potential of essential oils in optimizing ruminal fermentation and their contribution to the development of sustainable animal production in ruminants.

Abstract

This study assessed the impact of a mixture of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils (EOGOs) on in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and in vivo apparent nutrient digestibility. Different EOGO inclusion levels were evaluated to assess the dose response and potential effects of the mixture. Three EOGO inclusion levels (0.5, 0.75, and 1 mL/kg of incubated dry matter) were evaluated in vitro, while four treatments (0.5, 0.75, and 1 mL/day of EOGO and a control group) were tested in vivo on 12 West African sheep. A randomized controlled trial was conducted using a 4 × 4 design. Blood parameters (glucose, blood urea nitrogen, and β-hydroxybutyrate) were measured to observe the effect of EOGO on the metabolism. The results showed that the inclusion of EOGO significantly enhanced IVDMD at low levels (p < 0.052) compared with the highest levels in treatments containing 0.5 and 0.75 mL/kg of EOGO dry matter. A higher intake of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) (p < 0.05) was observed in the in vivo diets with the inclusion of EOGO. In terms of in vivo apparent digestibility, significant differences were found among treatments in the digestibility coefficients of DM, CP, and NDF. EOGO inclusion increased the digestibility of DM. CP digestibility displayed a cubic effect (p < 0.038), with the lowest values of digestibility observed at 1 mL EOGO inclusion. Additionally, NDF digestibility showed a cubic effect (p < 0.012), with the highest value obtained at 0.75 mL of EOGO inclusion. The inclusion levels above 0.75 mL EOGO showed a cubic effect, which indicates that higher concentrations of EOGO may not be beneficial for the digestibility of CP and NDF. Although no significant difference was observed in total digestible nutrients, a linear trend was observed (p < 0.059). EOGO improved the intake of DM, CP, and NDF. EOGO supplementation improved the digestibility of DM and NDF, with optimal levels observed at 0.5 mL/day. No significant effects were observed in the blood parameters. These results suggest that EOGO has the potential as an additive in ruminal nutrition to improve food digestibility and serve as an alternative to antibiotic additives. The use of EOGO potentially improves fiber digestion and may reduce the use of antibiotics in livestock production. Garlic (A. sativum) and oregano (O. vulgare) essential oils effectively modulated fiber digestibility at 0.75 mL/day. Garlic (A. sativum) and oregano (O. vulgare) essential oils have the potential to improve digestibility at low inclusion levels and serve as an alternative to antibiotic additives. The effectiveness of essential oils is greater in a mixture and at lower doses.

1. Introduction

Improving digestibility through ruminal fermentation is essential for ruminant production to enhance feed efficiency and minimize the emission of enteric methane and nitrogen excretion, which are major pollutants in livestock production [1,2]. Antibiotics that control ruminal fermentation play a role in reducing methane production and regulating the rate of fermentation of soluble carbohydrates, thereby improving fiber digestion and regulating the rate of protein degradation to preserve amino acids [3,4]. However, there are global concerns regarding the emergence of antibiotic resistance [5,6,7], with over 70% of antibiotics being used worldwide [8,9] as non-therapeutic antimicrobials in animal nutrition, which is considered one of the most important factors affecting the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans [10,11]. Natural additives, such as essential oils (EOs) [12,13], are a collection of secondary compounds [14,15] with antimicrobial and antibiotic properties [16,17] that could potentially modulate ruminal fermentation [18,19] and improve the nutritional properties of meat and milk [20,21,22,23,24].
Garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) EOs, or their main components (thymol, carvacrol, sulfur compounds, and allicin), could improve ruminal fermentation by reducing methane production [25,26,27,28], improving fiber digestion [29,30,31], and modulating ruminal populations and fermentation [32,33,34].
The effectiveness of EOs as additives may be greater at lower doses [29,30,35,36,37] and when used as a mixture for their synergistic effects [13,21,33,38,39], whereas higher doses could be detrimental to ruminal fermentation and populations [14,23,40,41]. Most previous studies on the effects of EOs on ruminants were conducted in vitro [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
The active compounds in EOs can vary due to factors such as climate and the plant part used [50,51]. Garlic-oil-derived compounds containing organic sulfur, such as diallyl sulfide, diallyl disulfide, diallyl trisulfide, and allicin, have antimicrobial properties [37,52,53,54].
Carvacrol is the main component of oregano EO [55,56] and has been shown to have antimicrobial [47,55], antioxidant [57,58,59], and anti-inflammatory properties [57,60]. In addition, other compounds present in EOs, such as ρ-cymene and limonene, also have antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties [58,61].
Dietary supplementation with EOs could improve energy balance in small ruminants, where serum glucose and β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) can be used as reliable indicators of ruminants’ energy status, while blood urea nitrogen (BUN) can indicate nitrogen metabolism [32,62,63]. While some studies have suggested that EO supplementation may improve metabolic health and energy metabolism [23,64,65], others have reported no significant effects on blood parameters [66,67,68,69,70]. Thus, it is necessary to determine the effect of EO supplementation on energy utilization, fat mobilization, and overall metabolic processes.
It is necessary to elucidate the effect of garlic and oregano essential oil (EOGO) on the complex interactions within an organism and determine safe and effective doses. Optimal doses and inclusion rates may vary depending on the specific animal species, diet composition, and production goals, and further research is required to fully understand their potential benefits and limitations in ruminant nutrition.
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a combination of EOGOs on the in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and in vivo digestibility of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) in West African sheep.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location and Animal Care

This study was conducted in the tropical dry forest conditions of Colombia at an altitude of 1168 m above sea level (4°25′59″ N, 75°13′1″ W). The research protocol and all animal care procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee for Animal Research at the University Cooperative de Colombia (Bioethics Committee Act Number 0316). The animal handling and experimental procedures were performed according to the guidelines for the care and use of animals in research. Special care was taken to ensure that the animals were not subjected to any unnecessary stress or discomfort during the study.

2.2. In Vitro Digestibility and Dose Selection

Prior to conducting the in vivo experiment, an in vitro digestibility protocol was performed to determine the appropriate dose of the combination of EOGOs. The protocol followed the guidelines for the DAISYII® incubator (ANKOM Technology, Fairport, NY, USA), using Ankom FN° 57 bags with 0.5 g of sample per bag. For each treatment, 24 bags were conditioned in four glass jars with a volume of 2000 mL, including one blank bag (empty and sealed), to determine the correction factor for the possible entry of particles or the weight loss of the bags. The rumen inoculum was collected with the help of a vacuum bomb and transported with CO2 until incubation. This was collected from a cannulated bovine feeder with the same diet proportions to obtain a microbiota ratio similar to that of the experiment (21 days before collection). The bags were incubated for 48 h at 39.2 ± 0.5 °C. Three levels of EOGO inclusion were evaluated and distributed across four treatments: Treatment 1—control (without added additives), Treatment 2—0.5 mL, Treatment 3—0.75 mL, and Treatment 4—1 mL EOGO per kg of DM. These dosages were equivalent to the amount of treatment applied to each jar containing 12.5 g of DM, which was then incubated. The same diet was used for the in vivo and in vitro conditions, and the diet ratio consisted of a 60:40 proportion of forage:concentrate (corn silage and corn, soybean cake and mineral supplement, respectively).

2.3. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Secondary EO Compounds

Sample analysis was performed using gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS), with the certified mixture of Cis hydrocarbons (AccuStandard, New Haven, CT, USA) as the reference standard. Sample preparation involved the dilution and direct injection of the EOs into the chromatographic equipment. Chromatographic analysis was performed using an Agilent Technologies AT 6890 Series Plus gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, California, USA), coupled with an Agilent Technologies MSD 5975 mass selective detector operating in full scan mode with radio frequency. The column used for the analysis was a DB-5MS (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA) with a 5%-phenyl-poly(dimethylsiloxane) phase, measuring 60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm. The injection was performed in split mode (30:1) with an injection volume of 2 µL.
The EO samples were analyzed for their chemical constituents using mass spectrometry, with electron ionization at 70 eV. The Adams, Wiley, and NIST databases were employed to identify the compounds detected. Table 1 and Table 2 present the retention times, relative quantities (%), and identities of the components identified in the EOs. In the case of the garlic (A. sativum) EO, the major constituents were diallyl trisulphide (25%), diallyl disulfide (22.7%), diallyl monosulfide (7.3%), and tetrasulfide of diallyl (6.7%). For the oregano (O. vulgare) EO, the principal components were carvacrol (79.4%), thymol (6.9%), and ρ-Cymene (4.0%).

2.4. Animals and Diet for In Vivo Experiment

Twelve intact male West African sheep with a mean body weight of 20 ± 2.5 kg (mean ± standard deviation) and approximately three months old were included in the study. They were housed in pens with three animals per pen and fed twice daily with ad libitum access to water. A 4 × 4 Latin square design was used over four periods. The animals were fed the same base diet (Table 3) twice a day: in the morning at 8:30 a.m. and in the afternoon at 4:30 p.m., with an allowance of 5–10% leftovers based on the natural matter of the offered feed. The base diet was formulated according to [71]. The diet consisted of corn silage and concentrate (corn, soybean meal, molasses, and dicalcium phosphate mineral premix) at a 60:40 ratio based on the DM. The EOGOs were orally administered daily to ensure consumption and were mixed in equal parts (v/v). The mixture was subsequently administered at a volume of 5 mL using glycerol as a vehicle. In the case of the control treatment, 5 mL of glycerol was administered without the inclusion of EOGOs.

2.5. Treatments and Experimental Periods

According to the obtained data on in vitro digestibility, the animals were assigned to one of four treatments, i.e., Treatments 1–4. The experimental period lasted for 16 days, where the first 12 days allowed for acclimation to the experimental diets, and the last 4 days were reserved for sample collection in individual metabolic cages. During sample collection, the animals were housed in digestive cages, and the total fecal production was collected on days 13–16 of the experimental period, twice a day at alternate times with a 4 h interval. The leftovers were weighed, homogenized and sampled (10% per animal during each evaluation period) for chemical analysis along with the offered food. The chemical composition was determined using the same methods as for that of DM (number 930.15), CP (number 992.15), ether extract (number 920.39) [72], and NDF [73], with addition of amylase [74]. The total digestible nutrient (TDN) was calculated according to the equation proposed by Sniffen [75]. All samples were pre-dried in an oven at 55 °C for 72 h and subsequently ground to a 1 mm thickness using a mill. The samples were collected four times per animal per treatment per experimental period, which resulted in a total of 16 samples per animal for analysis.

2.6. Blood Parameters

After a 12 h fasting period, blood was collected from the jugular veins of the animals by venepuncture. A total of 5 mL of whole blood was collected, with EDTA as the anticoagulant. The samples were refrigerated until they were processed in the laboratory, where they were centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 15 min to obtain the plasma. Enzymatic and colorimetric tests were performed to determine the plasma glucose, BUN, and BHB concentrations [76].

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The experimental design was a 4 × 4 Latin square. An analysis of variation (ANOVA) was performed using the mixed model methodology in MINITAB 17™ [77]. For variables that were repeated over time, a split-plot arrangement was used (subdivided plots), considering the effect of time and the interaction between time and treatment. The effects of the EO inclusion levels were analyzed using polynomial regression models. The mathematical model used included the period, treatment, and animal effects: Yijk = μ + Ai + Pj + Tk + eijk, where μ = mean of the treatments; Ai = effect of the i animal, ranging from 1 to 4; Pj = effect of the j period, ranging from 1 to 4; Tk = effect of the k treatment, ranging from 1 to 4; and eijk = random error. The effects of the periods and the interaction between treatments and periods were defined using a Fisher test applied to the ANOVA. Effects were determined to be significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. In Vitro Digestibility

The inclusion of a mixture of EOGOs had a positive effect on the IVDMD at low inclusion levels (p < 0.034), with values of 64.51c, 73.72a, 71.44b, and 66.36c for the control, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 mL treatments, respectively. Treatments with 0.5 and 0.75 mL presented the highest IVDMD values, while the treatment with 1 mL and the control group presented the lowest values (Figure 1).
A polynomial regression analysis was performed, and it was determined that increasing levels of EOs conferred a quadratic effect (p < 0.046 and R-Sq(adj) of 0.986) on the IVDMD (Figure 2). Based on the regression equation, inclusion levels of 0.5, 0.75, and 1 mL/day were selected for the in vivo digestibility study.
Differences were observed between the treatments regarding the intake of DM, CP, and NDF (p < 0.05) (Table 4). The treatments with EOGO inclusion showed a higher dry matter intake (DMI) (756 and 912 g DM/day) at the lower doses (0.5 and 0.75 mL) (p < 0.05). CP intake was also higher (94.83 and 93.53 g DM/day) in the treatments with the inclusion of 0.5 and 1 mL of EOGO (p < 0.05). Differences (p < 0.05) were also observed in the consumption of NDF between the treatments, with the consumption of NDF being higher in the diets with an inclusion level of 0.75 mL of EOGO (350.65 g DM/day).
The inclusion of EOGO had an observed quadratic effect on DMI (p < 0.033), CP (p < 0.002), and NDF (p < 0.001) intake, with the highest values occurring at 0.75 mL of EOGO inclusion.
Between treatments, the effect of EOGO was observed in the digestibility coefficients of DM, CP, and NDF (p < 0.05) in the EOGO treatment groups (691.4, 737.5, 737.5, and 74.01 g/kg respectively). An effect on the NDF was also observed (p < 0.05) (536.8, 560.5, 649.7, and 592.9 g/kg, respectively).
In the EOGO treatment groups, a linear effect (p < 0.046) was observed on DM digestibility as the EOGO inclusion levels increased. A cubic effect (p < 0.038) was observed on CP digestibility, with the lowest values observed at an inclusion level of 1 mL of EOGO. For NDF digestibility, there was an observed cubic effect (p < 0.012), with the highest value occurring in the 0.75 mL treatment group.

3.2. Blood Parameters

There were no observed effects of the treatments or inclusion levels (p > 0.05) of EOGO on the plasma glucose (mg/dL), BUN (mg/dL) or BHB concentrations (mmol/L) (Table 5).

4. Discussion

4.1. In Vitro Digestibility

The in vitro testing results indicate that the use of EOGOs at low levels can improve IVDMD. Specifically, at doses of 0.5 and 0.75 mL, the expected DMI values acquired using to the specified equation (y = 64.57 + 33.77x − 32.12 × 2) were accurate. The expected values were 73.43% and 71.83% DMI, and the obtained values were 73.75% and 72.75% DMI for the 0.5 and 0.75 mL treatments, respectively. However, for the control and 1 mL doses, there was a variation of more than 5%, which can be attributed to biological and individual responses. It should be emphasized that in vitro studies do not fully account for the complex interactions that occur within an organism, and therefore, EOs have the potential to enhance ruminal fermentation by positively impacting volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations, inhibiting methane (CH4) production and reducing ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) concentrations [48,57,70,78]. The effects on the ruminal fermentation can vary between studies, exhibiting no significant impact, positive effects, or negative effects [27,48,66,68,78,79,80,81]. These findings highlight the importance of determining the optimal doses depending on the type of diet and investigating the biological effects of the adaptation of ruminal microbiota.
The in vitro testing indicates that the EOGOs can improve IVDMD at low levels. It has been suggested [34] that supplementation with oregano EO can modify the ruminal fermentation to alter the VFA concentrations and reduce methane emissions by altering the ruminal bacterial community at low doses (52 mg/L), thereby improving digestibility.
Garlic EO effectively lowered methane production [43], decreased the abundance of methanogens, and altered the abundances of several bacterial populations that are important for in vitro feed digestion at a concentration of 0.50 g/L. Similar findings [82] regarding evaluations of garlic EO at the lowest level of inclusion (167 µL/L) found this dose to be the most appropriate, as higher doses were detrimental to feed digestibility and fermentation. At this level, the garlic EO exhibited the highest methane inhibition (38.5%). In addition, the inclusion of garlic EO at 167 µL/L resulted in a significant increase in the total VFA and propionate production and a decreased ratio of acetate to propionate but had no effect on feed digestibility. These results suggest that the garlic EO has the potential to mitigate methane production without negatively affecting feed digestibility when used as a feed additive. However, further research is required to determine the optimal dose and evaluate its effects on animal performance and health.

4.2. In Vivo Experiment

Our data suggest that the effect of EOGOs on digestibility can be explained by their impact on ruminal bacterial populations. Data from various studies have indicated that the susceptibility of bacteria to EOs primarily resides in the bacteria’s cell wall [21,83,84,85]. Thymol has been shown to induce changes in membrane permeability, which lead to the release of potassium ions (K+) and ATP [54,86]. Consequently, changes in the growth rate directly impact the composition and proportion of bacterial populations in the rumen, particularly gram-negative bacteria [87,88,89]. Monensin and EOs could have distinct effects on the composition of the rumen microbiota. In the rumen microbiota of transition dairy cows, it was found that a blend of EOs (thymol, guaiacol, eugenol, vanillin, salicylaldehyde, and limonene) did not significantly affect the microbiota; however, the study demonstrated that monensin sensitivity could be influenced by the structure and thickness of the bacterial cell wall rather than a clear differentiation between gram-negative and -positive bacteria.
The intake of DM, CP, and NDF increased with the inclusion of EOGOs at the 0.75 and 1 mL treatment levels. This increase can be attributed to improved fiber digestibility, which results in a higher rate of ruminal passage and subsequent increased intake [90]. These findings are consistent with previous studies on EOs. For example, a study [91] on cannulated grazing beef cattle using a 4 × 4 Latin square design and a blend of cashew, castor, and copaiba EOs at concentrations of 150, 300, and 450 mg/kg of DM, compared to monensin at 150 mg/kg of DM, showed that at EO lower concentrations (150 mg/kg), NDF digestibility increased and nitrogen utilization efficiency improved. We observed better DM, CP, and NDF digestibility at lower levels of EOGO inclusion. Specifically for DM digestibility, increasing levels of EOGO inclusion led to increased digestibility. For NDF and CP, the maximum digestibility was observed at an inclusion level of 0.75 mL of EOGO per day. These findings demonstrate that EOGOs can effectively modulate fiber digestibility at low levels of inclusion and that there is an effect when used in combination, which allows for the effective modulation of ruminal fermentation at low levels.
It was observed that the inclusion of 1 mL of EOGO resulted in decreased CP digestibility. EOs can inhibit specific ruminal populations, which leads to the inhibition of deamination and subsequently affects CP digestibility [56,92,93]. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have shown the ability of EOs to modulate protein degradation and improve digestibility, particularly at lower doses [12,36,69,94].
The effect on fiber digestibility could be explained by the effect of EOs on ruminal bacterial populations. In fistulated German Merino sheep, it was found that supplementation with oregano EO at a low dose of 4 g/day led to an increase in the populations of Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Ruminococcus albus, and Fibrobacter succinogenes, which suggests that oregano EO selectively promotes the growth of specific ruminal microbial populations. However, supplying high doses of oregano EO may have a negative impact on the same ruminal microbial populations [34].
In black-brown Swiss mountain sheep and Holstein cows, the inclusion of garlic EO in the diet did not affect NDF digestibility [31,53]. In an in vitro study with a 50:50 forage:concentrate ratio, the inclusion of 300 mg/L of garlic EO did not affect NDF digestibility [95,96]. The addition of EOs from Anacardium occidentale and Ricinus communis at inclusion rates of 1, 2, 4, and 8 g/day to a high-forage diet (80% Brachiaria humidicola hay) resulted in improved fiber digestion and digestibility, among which the greatest improvement was observed at the lowest dose (2 g/day) [29].
It has been suggested that EOs have a greater effect at lower doses and in combinations, while high doses may have a deleterious effect on fiber digestibility due to their antimicrobial properties [49,97].
Other authors have observed that increased levels of EOs can decrease total digestibility. EOs have the potential to decrease the deamination of amino acids through their effect on ammonia-producing bacteria and protozoa [14,65]. The effect on NDF digestibility can be attributed to the control of the rumen bacterial populations.
The presence of organosulfur compounds in garlic EO may have a direct inhibitory effect on rumen methanogenic archaea by inhibiting the enzyme 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase [96]. In addition, it has been found that oregano EO decreases ruminal protozoa, indicating that oregano EO could inhibit the protozoa, thereby affecting protein degradation in the rumen [34].
In the present study, the inclusion of low levels of EOGOs (0.5 and 0.75 mL/day) in the diet improved DM and NDF digestibility and decreased the degradation of CP. The inclusion of EOGO positively modified the rumen microbiota by modifying the degradation of CP and fiber.

4.3. Blood Parameters

No effects on the blood parameters were found in the present study. For BHB, similar findings have been observed when supplementing the high-concentrate diets of feedlot cows with thyme or cinnamon EOs, which did not significantly affect the blood parameters, including glucose, cholesterol, triglyceride, urea-N, BHB, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase [66].
However, it was observed in dairy cows fed with 1.2 g of a blend of EOs (containing menthol, eugenol, and anethol) that the BHB levels decreased with EO inclusion [98]. Similar data were reported [68] in dairy cows that were supplemented with a combination of capsicum oleoresin and clove EO, which resulted in a quadratic decrease in serum BHB, indicating improved metabolic health. The serum insulin concentration was also decreased in primiparous but not multiparous cows. However, nutrient utilization and other blood parameters were not affected.
The elevated glucose concentrations (102 mg/dL) that were observed in this study may be attributed to stressors during the days of sample collection, environmental conditions, and genetics. Stress activates the pituitary–adrenal axis, leading to the release of cortisol, which induces a hyperglycemic effect [99,100]. These values are in accordance with the expected results based on the genetic crosses and environmental conditions of our study. In hair sheep under tropical conditions, it was reported that the average glucose level was 98.4 mg/dL [101]. Similarly, an increase in glucose values was observed near parturition (164.90 ± 136.52 mg/dL) in Santa Inés sheep in Brazil [102].
Overall, the effects of EOs on the blood parameters and BHB levels may vary depending on the type and dose of EOs used, as well as the specific conditions of the study. Additional research is required to assess the effects of EOs on the energy balance of ruminants.

5. Conclusions

Our in vitro and in vivo experiments suggest that EOGOs have a positive and synergistic effect on digestibility in ruminants at low doses. EOGO inclusion levels of 0.5 and 0.75 mL per animal per day led to higher DM and NDF digestibility, with the maximum digestibility observed at 0.75 mL for NDF. These findings suggest that EOGOs have the potential to improve ruminal fermentation and fiber digestibility in ruminants, which could have important implications for ruminant production. Specifically, the use of EOGOs at low inclusion levels could lead to increased feed efficiency and animal performance. Further research is required to fully understand the potential benefits and limitations of the use of EOs. EOGOs enhance fiber digestion in ruminants and can be used as ruminal additives, potentially replacing antibiotics in ruminal nutrition.
Further studies are necessary to better understand the potential impact of EO supplementation on the various aspects of ruminant metabolism. This includes investigating how EO supplementation may influence the microbiota, energy utilization, fat mobilization, and overall metabolic processes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.T.B.-C.; methodology, O.T.B.-C., J.C.H.Z., R.D.C.-S. and L.M.P.S.; validation, O.T.B.-C., J.C.H.Z., R.D.C.-S. and L.M.P.S.; formal analysis, O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z.; investigation, O.T.B.-C., J.C.H.Z. and R.D.C.-S.; resources, O.T.B.-C., J.C.H.Z. and R.D.C.-S.; data curation, O.T.B.-C., J.C.H.Z., R.D.C.-S. and L.M.P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z.; writing—review and editing O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z.; visualization, O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z.; supervision, O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z.; project administration O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z.; funding acquisition, O.T.B.-C. and J.C.H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

System for Research, Technological Development, and Innovation (SENNOVA) of the National Learning Service of Colombia (SENA), the Cooperative University of Colombia, and the University of Tolima.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tolima Act number 003 of 14 October 2016.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are included in the present article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the System for Research, Technological Development, and Innovation (SENNOVA) of the National Learning Service of Colombia (SENA), the Cooperative University of Colombia, and the University of Tolima for their invaluable support in carrying out this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Leip, A.; Billen, G.; Garnier, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Lassaletta, L.; Reis, S.; Simpson, D.; Sutton, M.A.; De Vries, W.; Weiss, F.; et al. Impacts of European Livestock Production: Nitrogen, Sulphur, Phosphorus and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land-Use, Water Eutrophication and Biodiversity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 115004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eckard, R.J.; Grainger, C.; de Klein, C.A.M. Options for the Abatement of Methane and Nitrous Oxide from Ruminant Production: A Review. Livest. Sci. 2010, 130, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Russell, J.B.; Strobel, H.J. Effect of Ionophores on Ruminal Fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McGuffey, R.K. A 100-Year Review: Metabolic Modifiers in Dairy Cattle Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10113–10142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Grenni, P.; Ancona, V.; Barra Caracciolo, A. Ecological Effects of Antibiotics on Natural Ecosystems: A Review. Microchem. J. 2018, 136, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Den Bogaard, A.E.; Stobberingh, E.E. Epidemiology of Resistance to Antibiotics: Links between Animals and Humans. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2000, 14, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Aslam, B.; Wang, W.; Arshad, M.I.; Khurshid, M.; Muzammil, S.; Rasool, M.H.; Nisar, M.A.; Alvi, R.F.; Aslam, M.A.; Qamar, M.U.; et al. Antibiotic Resistance: A Rundown of a Global Crisis. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 1645–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van Boeckel, T.P.; Gandra, S.; Ashok, A.; Caudron, Q.; Grenfell, B.T.; Levin, S.A.; Laxminarayan, R. Global Antibiotic Consumption 2000 to 2010: An Analysis of National Pharmaceutical Sales Data. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 742–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Walker, P.; Rhubart-Berg, P.; McKenzie, S.; Kelling, K.; Lawrence, R.S. Public Health Implications of Meat Production and Consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2005, 8, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marshall, B.M.; Levy, S.B. Food Animals and Antimicrobials: Impacts on Human Health. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 718–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Founou, L.L.; Founou, R.C.; Essack, S.Y. Antibiotic Resistance in the Food Chain: A Developing Country-Perspective. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kholif, A.E.; Olafadehan, O.A. Essential Oils and Phytogenic Feed Additives in Ruminant Diet: Chemistry, Ruminal Microbiota and Fermentation, Feed Utilization and Productive Performance. Phytochem. Rev. 2021, 20, 1087–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Calo, J.R.; Crandall, P.G.; O’Bryan, C.A.; Ricke, S.C. Essential Oils as Antimicrobials in Food Systems—A Review. Food Control 2015, 54, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Benchaar, C.; Calsamiglia, S.; Chaves, A.V.; Fraser, G.R.; Colombatto, D.; McAllister, T.A.; Beauchemin, K.A. A Review of Plant-Derived Essential Oils in Ruminant Nutrition and Production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 145, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wallace, R.J. Antimicrobial Properties of Plant Secondary Metabolites. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2004, 63, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jouany, J.P.; Morgavi, D.P. Use of “natural” Products as Alternatives to Antibiotic Feed Additives in Ruminant Production. Animal 2007, 1, 1443–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sienkiewicz, M.; Denys, P.; Kowalczyk, E. Antibacterial and Antifungal Properties of Essential Oils. Int. Rev. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 2011, 17, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tomkins, N.W.; Denman, S.E.; Pilajun, R.; Wanapat, M.; McSweeney, C.S.; Elliott, R. Manipulating Rumen Fermentation and Methanogenesis Using an Essential Oil and Monensin in Beef Cattle Fed a Tropical Grass Hay. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2015, 200, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Honan, M.; Feng, X.; Tricarico, J.M.; Kebreab, E. Feed Additives as a Strategic Approach to Reduce Enteric Methane Production in Cattle: Modes of Action, Effectiveness and Safety. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, 62, 1303–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vasta, V.; Luciano, G. The Effects of Dietary Consumption of Plants Secondary Compounds on Small Ruminants’ Products Quality. Small Rumin. Res. 2011, 101, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Burt, S. Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ji, J.; Shankar, S.; Royon, F.; Salmieri, S.; Lacroix, M. Essential Oils as Natural Antimicrobials Applied in Meat and Meat Products—A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 993–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Al-Suwaiegh, S.B.; Morshedy, S.A.; Mansour, A.T.; Ahmed, M.H.; Zahran, S.M.; Alnemr, T.M.; Sallam, S.M.A. Effect of an Essential Oil Blend on Dairy Cow Performance during Treatment and Post-Treatment Periods. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Navarro, M.C.; Montilla, M.P.; Cabo, M.M.; Galisteo, M.; Cáceres, A.; Morales, C.; Berger, I. Antibacterial, Antiprotozoal and Antioxidant Activity of Five Plants Used in Izabal for Infectious Diseases. Phytother. Res. 2003, 17, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Simitzis, P.E.; Deligeorgis, S.G.; Bizelis, J.A.; Dardamani, A.; Theodosiou, I.; Fegeros, K. Effect of Dietary Oregano Oil Supplementation on Lamb Meat Characteristics. Meat Sci. 2008, 79, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Castillejos, L.; Calsamiglia, S.; Ferret, A. Effect of Essential Oil Active Compounds on Rumen Microbial Fermentation and Nutrient Flow in In Vitro Systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 2649–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cobellis, G.; Petrozzi, A.; Forte, C.; Acuti, G.; Orrù, M.; Marcotullio, M.C.; Aquino, A.; Nicolini, A.; Mazza, V.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; et al. Evaluation of the Effects of Mitigation on Methane and Ammonia Production by Using Origanum vulgare L. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. Essential Oils on In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Systems. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12856–12869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Klop, G.; Dijkstra, J.; Dieho, K.; Hendriks, W.H.; Bannink, A. Enteric Methane Production in Lactating Dairy Cows with Continuous Feeding of Essential Oils or Rotational Feeding of Essential Oils and Lauric Acid. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 3563–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Serrano, R.D.C.; Cruz, O.T.B.; Coneglian, S.M.; Branco, A.F. Use of Cashew and Castor Essential Oils to Improve Fibre Digestibility in High Forage Diets: Digestibility, Ruminal Fermentation and Microbial Protein Synthesis. Semin. Agrar. 2020, 41, 3429–3440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Patra, A.K.; Yu, Z. Effects of Essential Oils on Methane Production and Fermentation by, and Abundance and Diversity of, Rumen Microbial Populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 4271–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, W.Z.; Benchaar, C.; Ametaj, B.N.; Chaves, A.V.; He, M.L.; McAllister, T.A. Effects of Garlic and Juniper Berry Essential Oils on Ruminal Fermentation and on the Site and Extent of Digestion in Lactating Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 5671–5681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Jiao, T.; Wu, J.; Casper, D.P.; Davis, D.I.; Brown, M.A.; Zhao, S.; Liang, J.; Lei, Z.; Holloway, B. Feeding Sheep Cobalt and Oregano Essential Oil Alone or in Combination on Ruminal Nutrient Digestibility, Fermentation, and Fiber Digestion Combined with Scanning Electron Microscopy. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 639432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bodas, R.; Prieto, N.; García-González, R.; Andrés, S.; Giráldez, F.J.; López, S. Manipulation of Rumen Fermentation and Methane Production with Plant Secondary Metabolites. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2012, 176, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhou, R.; Wu, J.; Zhang, L.; Liu, L.; Casper, D.P.; Jiao, T.; Liu, T.; Wang, J.; Lang, X.; Song, S.; et al. Effects of Oregano Essential Oil on the Ruminal PH and Microbial Population of Sheep. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0217054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cardozo, P.W.; Calsamiglia, S.; Ferret, A.; Kamel, C. Effects of Natural Plant Extracts on Ruminal Protein Degradation and Fermentation Profiles in Continuous Culture. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3230–3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lin, B.; Lu, Y.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Wang, J.H.; Liang, Q.; Liu, J.X. Effects of Essential Oil Combinations on Sheep Ruminal Fermentation and Digestibility of a Diet with Fumarate Included. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 184, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ramos-Morales, E.; Martínez-Fernández, G.; Abecia, L.; Martin-García, A.I.; Molina-Alcaide, E.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R. Garlic Derived Compounds Modify Ruminal Fatty Acid Biohydrogenation and Induce Shifts in the Butyrivibrio Community in Continuous-Culture Fermenters. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 184, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aumeeruddy-Elalfi, Z.; Gurib-Fakim, A.; Mahomoodally, M.F. Chemical Composition, Antimicrobial and Antibiotic Potentiating Activity of Essential Oils from 10 Tropical Medicinal Plants from Mauritius. J. Herb. Med. 2016, 6, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lv, F.; Liang, H.; Yuan, Q.; Li, C. In Vitro Antimicrobial Effects and Mechanism of Action of Selected Plant Essential Oil Combinations against Four Food-Related Microorganisms. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 3057–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Da Silva, C.S.; de Souza, E.J.O.; Pereira, G.F.C.; Cavalcante, E.O.; de Lima, E.I.M.; Torres, T.R.; da Silva, J.R.C.; da Silva, D.C. Plant Extracts as Phytogenic Additives Considering Intake, Digestibility, and Feeding Behavior of Sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Olijhoek, D.W.; Hellwing, A.L.F.; Grevsen, K.; Haveman, L.S.; Chowdhury, M.R.; Løvendahl, P.; Weisbjerg, M.R.; Noel, S.J.; Højberg, O.; Wiking, L.; et al. Effect of Dried Oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) Plant Material in Feed on Methane Production, Rumen Fermentation, Nutrient Digestibility, and Milk Fatty Acid Composition in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 9902–9918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Benchaar, C.; Hassanat, F.; Petit, H.V. Dose-Response to Eugenol Supplementation to Dairy Cow Diets: Methane Production, N Excretion, Ruminal Fermentation, Nutrient Digestibility, Milk Production, and Milk Fatty Acid Profile. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 209, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Patra, A.K.; Yu, Z. Essential Oils Affect Populations of Some Rumen Bacteria In Vitro as Revealed by Microarray (RumenBactArray) Analysis. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wencelová, M.; Váradyová, Z.; Mihaliková, K.; Čobanová, K.; Plachá, I.; Pristaš, P.; Jalč, D.; Kišidayová, S. Rumen Fermentation Pattern, Lipid Metabolism and the Microbial Community of Sheep Fed a High-Concentrate Diet Supplemented with a Mix of Medicinal Plants. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 125, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Newbold, C.J.; McIntosh, F.M.; Williams, P.; Losa, R.; Wallace, R.J. Effects of a Specific Blend of Essential Oil Compounds on Rumen Fermentation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2004, 114, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mallet, A.C.T.; Cardoso, M.; Souza, P.E.; Machado, S.M.F.; Andrade, M.A.; Nelson, D.L.; Piccoli, R.H.; Pereira, C. Chemical Characterization of the Allium Sativum and Origanum Vulgare Essential Oils and Their Inhibition Effect on the Growth of Some Food Pathogens. Rev. Bras. Plantas Med. 2014, 16, 804–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. García, V.; Catalá-Gregori, P.; Madrid, J.; Hernández, F.; Megías, M.D.; Andrade-Montemayor, H.M. Potential of Carvacrol to Modify In Vitro Rumen Fermentation as Compared with Monensin. Animal 2007, 1, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhou, R.; Wu, J.; Lang, X.; Liu, L.; Casper, D.P.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Wei, S. Effects of Oregano Essential Oil on In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation, Methane Production, and Ruminal Microbial Community. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 2303–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cobellis, G.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Marcotullio, M.C.; Yu, Z. Evaluation of Different Essential Oils in Modulating Methane and Ammonia Production, Rumen Fermentation, and Rumen Bacteria In Vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 215, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Makkar, H.P.; Siddhuraju, P.; Becker, K. Plant Secondary Metabolites, 1st ed.; Humana: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-1-59745-425-4. [Google Scholar]
  51. Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Chemical Composition of Rumen Microbial Fraction and Fermentation Parameters as Affected by Tannins and Saponins Using an In Vitro Rumen Fermentation System. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 91, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chekki, R.Z.; Snoussi, A.; Hamrouni, I.; Bouzouita, N. Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activities of Tunisian Garlic (Allium Sativum) Essential Oil and Ethanol Extract. Mediterr. J. Chem. 2014, 3, 947–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Klevenhusen, F.; Zeitz, J.O.; Duval, S.; Kreuzer, M.; Soliva, C.R. Garlic Oil and Its Principal Component Diallyl Disulfide Fail to Mitigate Methane, but Improve Digestibility in Sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hyldgaard, M.; Mygind, T.; Meyer, R.L. Essential Oils in Food Preservation: Mode of Action, Synergies, and Interactions with Food Matrix Components. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Garcia-Galicia, I.A.; Arras-Acosta, J.A.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Rentería-Monterrubio, A.L.; Loya-Olguin, J.L.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Tirado-Gallegos, J.M.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D. Natural Oregano Essential Oil May Replace Antibiotics in Lamb Diets: Effects on Meat Quality. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Torres, R.N.S.; Moura, D.C.; Ghedini, C.P.; Ezequiel, J.M.B.; Almeida, M.T.C. Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Essential Oils on Ruminal Fermentation and Performance of Sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2020, 189, 106148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Suntres, Z.E.; Coccimiglio, J.; Alipour, M. The Bioactivity and Toxicological Actions of Carvacrol. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Gholami-Ahangaran, M.; Ahmadi-Dastgerdi, A.; Azizi, S.; Basiratpour, A.; Zokaei, M.; Derakhshan, M. Thymol and Carvacrol Supplementation in Poultry Health and Performance. Vet. Med. Sci. 2022, 8, 267–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Munekata, P.E.S.; Rocchetti, G.; Pateiro, M.; Lucini, L.; Domínguez, R.; Lorenzo, J.M. Addition of Plant Extracts to Meat and Meat Products to Extend Shelf-Life and Health-Promoting Attributes: An Overview. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 31, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Alagawany, M.; Farag, M.R.; Salah, A.S.; Mahmoud, M.A. The Role of Oregano Herb and Its Derivatives as Immunomodulators in Fish. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 2481–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cattani, M.; Maccarana, L.; Rossi, G.; Tagliapietra, F.; Schiavon, S.; Bailoni, L. Dose-Response and Inclusion Effects of Pure Natural Extracts and Synthetic Compounds on In Vitro Methane Production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 218, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Akbarian-Tefaghi, M.; Ghasemi, E.; Khorvash, M. Performance, Rumen Fermentation and Blood Metabolites of Dairy Calves Fed Starter Mixtures Supplemented with Herbal Plants, Essential Oils or Monensin. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 102, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kohn, R.A.; Dinneen, M.M.; Russek-Cohen, E. Using Blood Urea Nitrogen to Predict Nitrogen Excretion and Efficiency of Nitrogen Utilization in Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Horses, Pigs, and Rats. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 879–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Xu, Y.T.; Liu, L.; Long, S.F.; Pan, L.; Piao, X.S. Effect of Organic Acids and Essential Oils on Performance, Intestinal Health and Digestive Enzyme Activities of Weaned Pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 235, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Marjuki, M.; Andri, F.; Huda, A.N. The Use of Essential Oils as a Growth Promoter for Small Ruminants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. F1000Research 2020, 9, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vakili, A.R.; Khorrami, B.; Mesgaran, M.D.; Parand, E. The Effects of Thyme and Cinnamon Essential Oils on Performance, Rumen Fermentation and Blood Metabolites in Holstein Calves Consuming High Concentrate Diet. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 26, 935–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cruz, O.T.B.; Valero, M.V.; Zawadzki, F.; Rivaroli, D.C.; do Prado, R.M.; Lima, B.S.; do Prado, I.N. Effect of Glycerine and Essential Oils (Anacardium occidentale and Ricinus communis) on Animal Performance, Feed Efficiency and Carcass Characteristics of Crossbred Bulls Finished in a Feedlot System. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Silvestre, T.; Räisänen, S.E.; Cueva, S.F.; Wasson, D.E.; Lage, C.F.A.; Martins, L.F.; Wall, E.; Hristov, A.N. Effects of a Combination of Capsicum Oleoresin and Clove Essential Oil on Metabolic Status, Lactational Performance, and Enteric Methane Emissions in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 9610–9622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dorantes-Iturbide, G.; Orzuna-Orzuna, J.F.; Lara-Bueno, A.; Mendoza-Martínez, G.D.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Lee-Rangel, H.A. Essential Oils as a Dietary Additive for Small Ruminants: A Meta-Analysis on Performance, Rumen Parameters, Serum Metabolites, and Product Quality. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schären, M.; Drong, C.; Kiri, K.; Riede, S.; Gardener, M.; Meyer, U.; Hummel, J.; Urich, T.; Breves, G.; Dänicke, S. Differential Effects of Monensin and a Blend of Essential Oils on Rumen Microbiota Composition of Transition Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 2765–2783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. National Research Council (US). Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids; The National Academies Press, Ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-309-47323-1. [Google Scholar]
  72. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; George Latimer, J., Ed.; AOAC: Rockville, MD, USA, 2016; ISBN 0-935584-87-0. [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mertens, D.R. Gravimetric Determination of Amylase-Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds with Refluxing in Beakers or Crucibles: Collaborative Study. J. AOAC Int. 2002, 85, 1217–1240. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Sniffen, C.J.; O’connor, J.D.; Van Soest, P.J.; Fox, D.G.; Russell, J.B. A Net Carbohydrate and Protein System for Evaluating Cattle Diets: I. Ruminal Fermentation. J. Anim. Sci. 1992, 70, 3562–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Allain, C.C.; Poon, L.S.; Chan, C.S.G.; Richmond, W.; Fu, P.C. Enzymatic Determination of Total Serum Cholesterol. Clin. Chem. 1974, 20, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Minitab, LCC. Getting Started with Minitab 17; Minitab, LCC: State College, PA, USA, 2014; p. 73. [Google Scholar]
  78. Castillejos, L.; Calsamiglia, S.; Ferret, A.; Losa, R. Effects of Dose and Adaptation Time of a Specific Blend of Essential Oil Compounds on Rumen Fermentation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 132, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Benchaar, C. Feeding Oregano Oil and Its Main Component Carvacrol Does Not Affect Ruminal Fermentation, Nutrient Utilization, Methane Emissions, Milk Production, or Milk Fatty Acid Composition of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 1516–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Kholif, A.E.; Kassab, A.Y.; Azzaz, H.H.; Matloup, O.H.; Hamdon, H.A.; Olafadehan, O.A.; Morsy, T.A. Essential Oils Blend with a Newly Developed Enzyme Cocktail Works Synergistically to Enhance Feed Utilization and Milk Production of Farafra Ewes in the Subtropics. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 161, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yu, Z.; Morrison, M. Improved Extraction of PCR-Quality Community DNA from Digesta and Fecal Samples. Biotechniques 2004, 3, 808–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pawar, M.M.; Kamra, D.N.; Agarwal, N.; Chaudhary, L.C. Effects of Essential Oils on In Vitro Methanogenesis and Feed Fermentation with Buffalo Rumen Liquor. Agric. Res. 2014, 3, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Benchaar, C.; Greathead, H. Essential Oils and Opportunities to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 338–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Faleiro, M.L. The Mode of Antibacterial Action of Essential Oils. Sci. Against Microb. Pathog. Commun. Curr. Res. Technol. Adv. 2011, 3, 1143–1156. [Google Scholar]
  85. García-Salinas, S.; Elizondo-Castillo, H.; Arruebo, M.; Mendoza, G.; Irusta, S. Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity and Cytotoxicity of Different Components of Natural Origin Present in Essential Oils. Molecules 2018, 23, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Lambert, R.J.W.; Skandamis, P.N.; Coote, P.J.; Nychas, G.J.E. A Study of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration and Mode of Action of Oregano Essential Oil, Thymol and Carvacrol. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 91, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ajileye, O.O.; Obuotor, E.M.; Akinkunmi, E.O.; Aderogba, M.A. Isolation and Characterization of Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Compounds from Anacardium occidentale L. (Anacardiaceae) Leaf Extract. J. King Saud Univ.-Sci. 2015, 27, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yap, P.S.X.; Yusoff, K.; Lim, S.H.E.; Chong, C.M.; Lai, K.S. Membrane Disruption Properties of Essential Oils—A Double-Edged Sword? Processes 2021, 9, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhu, Y.; Li, C.; Cui, H.; Lin, L. Encapsulation Strategies to Enhance the Antibacterial Properties of Essential Oils in Food System. Food Control 2021, 123, 107856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mertens, D.R. Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. In Agricultural Research Service; Fahey, G.C., Jr., Ed.; Wiley: Madison, WI, USA, 1994; pp. 494–532. ISBN 9780891185796. [Google Scholar]
  91. Michailoff, A.A.; Silveira, M.F.; Maeda, E.M.; Sordi, A.C.B.; Francisco, L.F.; Farenzena, R. Effect of Including Functional Oils in Ovine Diets on Ruminal Fermentation and Performance. Small Rumin. Res. 2020, 185, 106084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Calsamiglia, S. Nuevas Bases Para La Utilización de La Fibra En Dietas de Rumiantes. In Proceedings of the XIII Curso de Especialización FEDN, Madrid, Spain, 6–7 November 1997; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  93. Mcintosh, F.M.; Williams, P.; Losa, R.; Wallace, R.J.; Newbold, C.J.; Beever, D.A. Effects of Essential Oils on Ruminal Microorganisms and Their Protein Metabolism Effects of Essential Oils on Ruminal Microorganisms and Their Protein Metabolism. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5011–5014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nanon, A.; Suksombat, W.; Yang, W.Z. Effects of Essential Oils Supplementation on In Vitro and In Situ Feed Digestion in Beef Cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 196, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Busquet, M.; Calsamiglia, S.; Ferret, A.; Kamel, C. Plant Extracts Affect In Vitro Rumen Microbial Fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 761–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Busquet, M.; Calsamiglia, S.; Ferret, A.; Carroll, M.D.; Kamel, C. Effect of Garlic Oil and Four of Its Compounds on Rumen Microbial Fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 4393–4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. De Souza, K.A.; Monteschio, J.d.O.; Mottin, C.; Ramos, T.R.; Pinto, L.A.d.M.; Eiras, C.E.; Guerrero, A.; do Prado, I.N. Effects of Diet Supplementation with Clove and Rosemary Essential Oils and Protected Oils (Eugenol, Thymol and Vanillin) on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Digestibility, and Ingestive Behavior Activities for Nellore Heifers Finished in Feedl. Livest. Sci. 2019, 220, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Braun, H.S.; Schrapers, K.T.; Mahlkow-Nerge, K.; Stumpff, F.; Rosendahl, J. Dietary Supplementation of Essential Oils in Dairy Cows: Evidence for Stimulatory Effects on Nutrient Absorption. Animal 2019, 13, 518–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Brockman, R.P.; Laarveld, B. Hormonal Regulation of Metabolism in Ruminants: A Review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1986, 14, 313–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Oke, O.E.; Uyanga, V.A.; Iyasere, O.S.; Oke, F.O.; Majekodunmi, B.C.; Logunleko, M.O.; Abiona, J.A.; Nwosu, E.U.; Abioja, M.O.; Daramola, J.O.; et al. Environmental Stress and Livestock Productivity in Hot-Humid Tropics: Alleviation and Future Perspectives. J. Therm. Biol. 2021, 100, 103077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Maza, L.A.; Cardona, J.A.; Vergara, O.G. Analysis of Metabolic Profile in Pregnant Creole Sheep in Extensive Grazing Conditions. Rev. Cient. 2011, 21, 335–339. [Google Scholar]
  102. Santos dos, R.; Campos, A.G.S.S.; Afonso, J.A.B.; Soares, P.C.; de Mendonça, C.L. Efeito Da Administração de Propileno Glicol e Cobalto Associado à Vitamina B12 Sobre o Perfil Metabólico e a Atividade Enzimática de Ovelhas Da Raça Santa Inês No Periparto. Pesqui. Vet. Bras. 2012, 32, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vetsci 10 00695 g001
Figure 1. In vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDM) with different inclusion levels of a mixture of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils.
Figure 1. In vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDM) with different inclusion levels of a mixture of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils.
Vetsci 10 00695 g001
Vetsci 10 00695 g002
Figure 2. In vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDM) polynomial analysis.
Figure 2. In vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDM) polynomial analysis.
Vetsci 10 00695 g002
Table 1. Identification, retention times, and relative amount (%) of the secondary compounds present in the garlic (Allium sativum) essential oil, identified via GC-MS.
Table 1. Identification, retention times, and relative amount (%) of the secondary compounds present in the garlic (Allium sativum) essential oil, identified via GC-MS.
Retention Time, min (tR)Compound IdentificationRelative Amount, %
7.56Allyl methyl sulfide0.50
9.03dimethyl disulfide0.20
13.75diallyl monosulfide7.30
16.3Ssharp methyl disulfide3.30
18.79dimethyl trisulfide0.60
23.57diallyl disulfide22.70
24.08cis-propenyl-propyl disulfide0.10
25.99Methyl allyl trisulfide9.70
26.84-Methyl-1,2,3-trithiolane2.70
29.05dimethyl tetrasulfide0.70
29.29* Compound NI m/z (%): 162 (4), 121 (23), 89 (55), 75 (100), 59 (12), 41(88)0.70
31.493-Ethyl-2,4,5-trithiahexane0.70
32.21diallyl trisulfide25.00
35.165-Methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrathian2.00
35.36* Compound NI m/z (%): 184 (10), 158 (15), 143 (1), 120 (34), 94 (4), 79 (45), 64 (41), 41 (100)0.80
36.91-Methyl-2-(1-(prop-1-en-1-ylthio)propyl)disulfane0.30
37.491-(1-{Methylthio)propyl)-2-propyl-disulfane2.40
39.574-Ethyl-2,3,5,6-tetrathiaheptane0.30
40.75diallyl tetrasulfide6.70
41.851-Methyl-2-(2-propenylthio)ethyl-2-propenyl disulfide1.00
42.131-propenyl 1-(1-propenylthio)propyl disulfide2.70
44.01* Compound NI m/z(o/o): 202 (11), 170 (28), 138 (52), 106 (17), 96 (15), 64 (71), 41(100)1.90
44.4* Compound NI m/z(o/o): 202 (1), 170 (13), 138 (9), 121 (69), 106 (7), 89 (34), 73 (67), 41 (100)0.90
46.5* Compound NI m/z(o/o): 192 (1), 177 (3), 145 (4), 113 (100), 99 (14), 85 (36), 79 (68), 64 (21), 41 (72)2.20
47.111,5-Dithiaspiro[5.6]dodecan-7-ol0.90
47.848-Methyl-4,5,6, 9-tetrathia-1, 11-dodecadiene3.70
* Presumptive identification.
Table 2. Identification, retention times, and relative amount (%) of the secondary compounds present in the oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oil, identified via GC-MS.
Table 2. Identification, retention times, and relative amount (%) of the secondary compounds present in the oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oil, identified via GC-MS.
Retention Time, min (tR)Compound IdentificationRelative Amount, %
19.52β-Myrcene0.30
20.26ρ-Mint-1(7),8-diene<0.1
20.81α-Terpinene0.20
21.17ρ-Cymene4.00
21.36Limonene1.00
22.55γ-Terpinene0.60
24.2Linalool1.60
25.41(1R,2S,3S)-3-Isopropenyl-1,2-dimethylcyclopentanol<0.1
31.45Thymol6.90
32.11Carvacrol79.40
35.04α-Copaene0.10
36.75trans-β-Caryophyllene2.10
37.96α-Humulene0.20
39.82δ-Cadinene<0.1
41.95caryophyllene oxide1.90
42.38Humulene epoxide I<0.1
42.71humulene epoxide II0.10
44.22(1R,7S,E)-7-isopropyl-4,10-dimethylene-cyclodec-5-enol0.20
50.395-(6-Methylhepta-1,5-dien-2yl)1-1-(4-methylpent-3-en-1-yl)cyclohex-1-ene (m-Camphorene)0.10
51.144-(6-Methylhepta-1,5-dien-2-yl)-1-(4methylpent-3-en-1-yl)cyclohex-1-ene (ρ-Camphorene)<0.1
51.89* Compound NI m/z (%): 150 (53), 135 (100), 121 (13), 107 (14), 93 (30), 79 (16), 65 (8)0.30
52.41* Compound NI m/z (%): 150 (72), 135 (100), 121 (12), 107 (11), 93 (23), 79 (15), 65 (8)0.10
53.84a,6a-Dimethyl-4,4a,6,6a,8,9,9a,9b,10,11-decahydrocyclopenta[7,8] phenanthro[4β,5-β]oxirene-2,7(3H,5ah)-diona<0.1
54.01* Compound NI m/z (%): 302 (60), 284 (6), 259 (34), 241 (84), 201 (100), 173 (20), 159 (71), 145 (14), 131 (9), 115 (17), 91 (18), 58 (20)0.20
54.49(Z)-2Methyl-6-(4-methyl-5-(3-methylbut-2-enoyl)cyclohex-3-en-1-yl)hepta-2,5-dien-4-one0.20
54.66Androsta-1,4,7-triene-3,17-dione<0.1
63.25* Compound NI m/z (%): 370 (18), 355 (1), 221 (5), 203 (32), 175 (8), 150 (100), 135 (92), 121 (21), 107 (29), 93 (25), 79 (28)0.30
* Presumptive identification.
Table 3. Chemical composition of the total mix ration (TMR) and percentage composition of ingredients used in the experimental basal diet.
Table 3. Chemical composition of the total mix ration (TMR) and percentage composition of ingredients used in the experimental basal diet.
Ingredients and Chemical Composition of the Diets
% of DM
Ingredient
Maize silage60.00
Corn grain, ground21.00
Soybean meal17.00
Molasses1.10
Bicalcium phosphate0.01
Mineral mixture 10.89
Chemical composition
Crude protein (CP)11.55
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF)40.63
Ether extract (EE)3.45
Total digestible nutrients (TDN)68.00
1 Calcium: 130.0 g (max.), phosphorus: 65.0 g (min.), sodium: 135.0 g, sulfur: 12.0 g, magnesium: 12 g, manganese: 1.050 mg, cobalt: 63 mg, iodine: 63 mg, copper: 1.155 mg, selenium: 18 mg, zinc: 3.080 mg, eFluor: 650 mg. Vitamin premix.
Table 4. In vivo total apparent consumption and digestibility in West African sheep supplemented with different levels of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils.
Table 4. In vivo total apparent consumption and digestibility in West African sheep supplemented with different levels of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils.
+ EO Inclusion mL/day p-Value
Item00.50.751.0SEM 1L 2Q 3C 4
Dry matter587.79 c756.27 b912.87 a889.94 a14.060.0700.0330.394
Crude Protein74.60 c94.83 b107.11 a93.53 b2.200.0630.0020.427
Non-Fiber Carbohydrates332.73315.54331.84320.376.290.8250.8910.514
Neutral Detergent Fiber217.00 c306.44 b350.65 a325.16 ab12.740.0620.0010.738
Ether Extract30.05 ab29.21 b29.86 ab30.77 a0.530.7430.6500.887
Dry matter691.4 b737.5 a727.5 a731.4 a0.970.0460.0850.200
Crude Protein671.7629.6666.4616.81.660.1050.8310.038
Non-Fiber Carbohydrates901.3906.0887.5896.01.240.5340.8970.365
Neutral detergent fiber536.8 b560.5 b649.7 a592.9 b2.150.0760.0620.012
Ether extract787.1 bc821.1 ab785.1 c823.6 a1.180.4730.9220.162
TDN 5698.5707.3737.5702.91.100.3910.0590.092
1 SEM: standard error of means. 2 L = linear; 3 Q = quadratic; 4 C = cubic; 5 TDN = total digestible nutrients. Means with different letters show statistical differences according to the Fisher test. Letters (a, b, c, ab, bc) denote treatment distinctions. Identical letters signify nonsignificant differences, while differing letters denote statistical significance. + Garlic essential oil comprising 25% diallyl disulfide and 22% diallyl monosulfide, and oregano essential oil comprising 79% carvacrol and 6.9% thymol.
Table 5. Plasma glucose (mg/dL), blood urea nitrogen (mg/dL), and β-hydroxybutyrate concentration (mmol/L), of West African sheep supplemented with different levels of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils.
Table 5. Plasma glucose (mg/dL), blood urea nitrogen (mg/dL), and β-hydroxybutyrate concentration (mmol/L), of West African sheep supplemented with different levels of garlic (Allium sativum) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) essential oils.
+ EO Inclusions mL/day p-Value
Item00.50.751.0SEM 1L 2Q 3C 4
Glucose, mg/dL98.92101.67105.67102.832.6110.2270.3360.532
BUN, mg/dL20.7818.6818.7819.061.0260.2980.2760.674
β-hydroxybutyrate, mmol/L0.420.370.370.370.0360.5230.6340.831
1 SEM: standard error of means. 2 L = linear; 3 Q = quadratic; 4 C = cubic. + Garlic essential oil comprising 25% diallyl disulfide and 22% diallyl monosulfide, and oregano essential oil comprising 79% carvacrol and 6.9% thymol.
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

Barreto-Cruz, O.T.; Henao Zambrano, J.C.; Castañeda-Serrano, R.D.; Peñuela Sierra, L.M. Assessing the In Vitro and In Vivo Effect of Supplementation with a Garlic (Allium sativum) and Oregano (Origanum vulgare) Essential Oil Mixture on Digestibility in West African Sheep. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 695. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10120695

AMA Style

Barreto-Cruz OT, Henao Zambrano JC, Castañeda-Serrano RD, Peñuela Sierra LM. Assessing the In Vitro and In Vivo Effect of Supplementation with a Garlic (Allium sativum) and Oregano (Origanum vulgare) Essential Oil Mixture on Digestibility in West African Sheep. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(12):695. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10120695

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barreto-Cruz, Olga Teresa, Juan Carlos Henao Zambrano, Roman David Castañeda-Serrano, and Lina Maria Peñuela Sierra. 2023. "Assessing the In Vitro and In Vivo Effect of Supplementation with a Garlic (Allium sativum) and Oregano (Origanum vulgare) Essential Oil Mixture on Digestibility in West African Sheep" Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 12: 695. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10120695

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