Next Article in Journal
Application of 12C6 Heavy Ion-Irradiated BHK-21 Cells in Production of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine
Next Article in Special Issue
Antioxidant Activity, Phenolic Acid, and Flavonoid Composition of an Antiseptic Ointment Based on Aloe and Green Propolis and Its Potential for Preventing Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Previous Article in Journal
Probiotic Potential of Enterococcus lactis GL3 Strain Isolated from Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Larvae: Insights into Its Antimicrobial Activity Against Paenibacillus larvae
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Isolation Ruminal Yeast from Ruminants on In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/vetsci12020166
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Replacement of Monensin with a Proprietary Tannin-Blend Additive in Calf-Fed Holstein Steer Diets

by
Sydney M. Bowman-Schnug
1,
Luke K. Fuerniss
1,
Joe D. Cameron
2,
Jonathon L. Beckett
3,
Muhammad Ahsin
4,
Stephan van Vliet
4,
Guy D. Hufstedler
5 and
Bradley J. Johnson
1,*
1
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
2
Mesquite Cattle Feeders, Brawley, CA 92227, USA
3
Beckett Consulting Services, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
4
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
5
Silvateam USA, New York, NY 10022, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2025, 12(2), 166; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020166
Submission received: 7 January 2025 / Revised: 3 February 2025 / Accepted: 11 February 2025 / Published: 13 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancing Ruminant Health and Production: Alternatives to Antibiotics)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

With the potential for ionophores to be excluded from diets of naturally fed cattle, tannin-based products could serve as replacements. The objective of this study was to test Silvafeed ByProX, a proprietary tannin-blend product, compared to monensin in terms of growth performance, carcass traits, and health traits in feedlot finishing diets of natural Holstein steers. Health diagnoses differed by treatment, where respiratory disease was less frequent and lameness was more frequent in ByProX-supplemented cattle. The frequency of digestive disturbances was not influenced by treatment. Feedlot performance and gain efficiency were improved with dietary monensin inclusion. Carcass performance was similar regardless of treatment. Plant secondary-derived metabolites were increased in muscle tissues with ByProX treatment. Silvafeed ByProX might maintain cattle health in the absence of monensin.

Abstract

A proprietary tannin blend was evaluated as a potential ionophore replacement considering traits of feedlot cattle growth performance, carcass traits, and health. Holstein steers (n = 1450; initial shrunk body weight (SBW) = 141.6 ± 34.2 kg.) were blocked by origin and randomly assigned to receive a finishing diet containing one of two treatments: 1) 14,500 mg per head daily of Silvafeed ByProX (SBPX; ByPro/BX blend, Silvateam S.p.A, San Michele Mondovì, Italy) or 2) 180 mg per head daily of monensin (MON; Rumensin™ 90, Elanco, Greenfield, IN). Steers were on trial for 341 ± 11 days. Pen was the experimental unit (~72 steers/pen), with ten pens per treatment. Data were analyzed in R 4.2.2 and are reported with deads and removals included. Initial SBW tended to be greater (p = 0.06) for SBPX steers and was therefore utilized as a covariate for other weighted measures. Treatments experienced similar ADG even though SBPX-supplemented cattle consumed more DM daily (p < 0.01); MON cattle had more efficient gain (p < 0.01). No difference (p > 0.10) was observed for total morbidity and mortality. However, SBPX cattle were more frequently diagnosed with lameness or other illness, while MON cattle experienced greater challenge with respiratory illness and tended to require third pulls more frequently (p ≤ 0.10). Greater (p < 0.05) concentrations of eighteen phytochemical metabolites were recorded in muscle samples from SBPX steers compared to those from MON steers, indicating greater phenolic exposure from tannin-rich supplementation. No difference was observed for carcass traits or liver abscess distributions (p > 0.10). Though performance outcomes were not replicated, Silvafeed ByProX could be an option to maintain cattle health in the absence of monensin.

1. Introduction

The discussion of antimicrobial resistance has begun to impact consumer preference and influence the implementation of certain growth-promoting technologies in the cattle feeding industry. Several countries, including the European Union, have already banned livestock growth promotants, placing international attention on their use. One such technology currently under scrutiny is monensin, an ionophore antibiotic that is widely utilized because it moderates dry matter intake (DMI) without depressing weight gain [1,2]. Monensin modifies ruminal microbial communities, which likewise modulates ruminal volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, improves nitrogen metabolism, and leads to feed efficiency improvements [3,4,5,6]. While these performance outcomes are important factors of economic relevance, monensin is also critical to animal health because it effectively controls coccidiosis and reduces the risk of digestive disturbances. These health benefits are especially crucial in calf-fed Holstein steers because of greater time on feed and greater risk of metabolic disorders [2]. With multiple countries and specialty beef programs already requiring monensin exclusion, evaluating potential alternatives is crucial to maintaining both performance and animal health.
Tannins are naturally derived polyphenolic compounds found in many plant varieties commonly consumed by ruminants. While historically viewed as toxic antinutritional factors, tannins exhibit many biological actions that are of interest to food animal production [7]. Plant tannins have a well-recognized affinity for proteins, though their unique structure allows them to bind to and form stable complexes with other dietary polymers as well [8,9]. By precipitating proteins and other nutrients, tannins can decrease ruminal degradation, subsequently improving availability for digestion and absorption within the small intestine [7,10]. Resulting impacts on animal performance have been variable. While some studies have reported an ADG or efficiency improvements associated with tannin supplementation in high-grain [11,12,13] and forage-based [14] diets, other evaluations have reported no effect of tannin inclusion on cattle growth performance [15,16,17]. Health is also a crucial consideration for conventional additive replacement, and tannins have been known to possess other properties demonstrating antimicrobial, antiviral, antiparasitic, and antioxidant-like effects [7,10]. The extent of tannin-mediated performance and health outcomes is considered highly variable based on tannin type and origin [18].
Monensin and tannins are both recognized for their ability to alter rumen fermentation and metabolism of cattle. While the mechanisms are unique, there is potential that these similarities may allow a proprietary tannin-blend product to mimic performance outcomes generally attributed to ionophores. Moreover, specific interest has been expressed in the potential ability of this product to improve cattle health and limit the necessity of antibiotic treatment. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to test Silvafeed ByProX, a proprietary tannin-blend additive, compared to monensin for growth performance, carcass, and health traits in feedlot finishing diets of calf-fed Holstein steers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animal Care and Use

This experiment was a collaborative effort conducted at a commercial feedlot near Brawley, CA. All research followed the guidelines stated in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching [19].

2.2. Animals, Diet, and Experimental Design

A total of 1450 Holstein steers with an average initial shrunk body weight (SBW) of 141.6 ± 34.3 kg (Mean ± Range) were blocked by origin (10 blocks; 145 steers per block) and randomly assigned to receive one of two treatments (~72 steers per treatment block; n = 10 pens per treatment). Upon feedyard arrival, steers were given free-choice access to hay and rested for a minimum of 48 h before initial processing. At processing, steers received a pour-on for control of internal and external parasites and were vaccinated for respiratory (Pyramid 3 LPH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Duluth, GA, USA; Nasalgen, Merck, Madison, NJ, USA) and clostridial (Vision 7 with SPUR, Merck, Madison, NJ, USA) diseases. Additionally, steers received a macrolide antibiotic (Increxxa, Elanco, Greenfield, IN, USA) for the control of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and a probiotic drench (Lactipro NXT, MS Biotec, Wamego, KS, USA).
The feedyard allowed for approximately 16.1 square meters of pen space and 5.6 square meters of covered shade space per steer. Each pen also included 30.5 m of concrete bunk space and a concrete water trough. Pens were allocated such that the same treatment shared a feed bunk line, which was done to minimize the risk of incorrectly administering treatment diets. Both treatments shared a drovers alley and pens within block were assigned such that they were immediately adjacent to one another across the drovers alley. Steers received the same diet throughout the course of their 357-day feeding period. An adaptation period was not utilized because cattle were sourced directly from a calf ranch where they were receiving a high energy grower ration with very little roughage. While the feedlot finishing diet was more energy dense, it also contained a greater amount of roughage, which was believed to negate the need for transition diets. The feedlot finishing diet formulation is shown in Table 1. It was composed of 60% steam-flaked corn and 13% roughage and reached a Net Energy for gain (NEG) of 1.47 Mcal/kg. Micro ingredients supplied on a per-head basis included Availa Zn 120 (3000 mg/hd/d; ZinPro, Eden Prairie, Minnesota), Bovamine Defend Plus 20 k (50 mg/hd/d; Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, Wisconsin), and vitamins A (5225.12 IU/kg) and D (522.52 IU/kg). Cattle were randomly assigned to receive finishing diet containing either: (1) 14,500 mg (~0.15% of diet DM) per head daily of an experimental proprietary combination blend of condensed tannin extract from quebracho (Schinopsis lorentzii), hydrolysable tannin extract from chestnut (Castanea sativa) and carriers from cereals rich in saponins, Silvafeed ByProX (SBPX; ByPro/BX blend, Silvateam S.p.A, San Michele Mondovì, Italy) or (2) 320 mg per head daily of monensin (MON; Rumensin™ 90, Elanco, Greenfield, IN, USA). Steers were fed an average of 341 days on the trial diet before being transported 378.2 km for harvest at a commercial beef processing plant in Tolleson, Arizona.

2.3. Feedlot Performance Measures

Steers were weighed the morning before trial initiation and a 4% shrink was applied to determine initial SBW. There was a tendency for SBPX cattle to weigh more, so initial SBW was used as a covariate for all other weighted measures. Daily feed deliveries were recorded and used to determine daily dry matter intake (DMI). Additionally, the average variation (CV, %) in feed deliveries was analyzed separately. Steers were again weighed prior to shipping for harvest and a 4% shrink was applied to calculate final SBW. Final SBW and DMI were utilized to calculate average daily gain (ADG) and efficiency (G:F).

2.4. Measures of Health Response

Health data were collected throughout the feeding period. An average gap period of 16 ± 3 days existed between cattle arrival and trial start. All mortalities and removals made before dietary treatments were applied have been excluded from the study. Additionally, all treatments made prior to trial start were also excluded. Initial pulls were defined as all cattle removed from their home pen and transported to a hospital because of suspected disease or defect. Repulls were cattle that were pulled again for any further treatment. Neither initial pulls nor repulls includes steers that were removed as suspected bullers. Bullers were identified as animals that underwent excessive riding or imitated bull-like behavior, causing a reduction in performance. All health-related pull decisions and resulting diagnoses were made by trained individuals at the feedyard and treatment plans were executed according to yard protocol. These individuals were blinded to the study. Costs associated with treatment, including chute charges and medicine costs, were recorded and analyzed. Railers were identified as any steers that appeared unthrifty and were deemed unfit to remain in the feedyard. All mortalities were recorded and necropsies were performed by a trained individual to determine cause of death. Cattle that were removed from their home pen due to health treatment that nullified their eligibility for the natural program (natural program fallouts) or cattle that were railed were likewise not considered in the study following the date of removal. The remaining steers, which were shipped for harvest in the intended natural program, are considered natural program candidates and were likewise eligible for premiums associated with the natural program.

2.5. Carcass Performance Measures

Steers were shipped to a commercial beef processing plant in Tolleson, AZ, for harvest based on a visual assessment of finish. Both treatments within each block were shipped on the same date. Lot tags were noted to ensure that all cattle and resulting carcasses were properly identified within respective treatment groups. Following removal of the gut mass, livers were scored according to Elanco’s liver abscess classification system by trained individuals from Texas Tech University. Hot carcass weight (HCW) was recorded after final trim. 12th rib fat thickness was measured after carcasses underwent a 24 h chill. At this time, imprints of the Longissimus dorsi muscle were also taken and later traced and measured with an approved grid to determine ribeye area (REA) in centimeters squared. USDA quality (QG) and yield grades (YG) were evaluated by a certified USDA grader.

2.6. Phytochemical Quantification

A subset of USDA Choice carcasses (n = 18 per treatment) were randomly selected and muscle samples estimated to weigh between 10 and 15 g were taken from the neck. These samples were stored in individually labeled collection bags and frozen using dry ice. Following collection, samples were shipped to Utah State University for phytochemical quantification. Muscle samples were pulverized under liquid nitrogen, and approximately 200 ± 5 mg of each sample was extracted with 1.2 mL of a solution containing internal standards (4-hydroxybenzoic acid-13C6, apigenin-d5, benzoic acid-d5, genistein-d4, phenol-13C6, quercetin-D3, resveratrol-13C6, and trans-cinnamic acid-d7) at concentrations of 1, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, and 5 µM, respectively in a MTBE:MeOH (2:1, v:v) solution. The samples were homogenized for 5 min using a tissue lyser set at 30 oscillations/sec (Qiagen Retsch Tissue Lyser II, Germantown, MD, USA). Proteins were precipitated at −20 °C for 2 h, and the supernatant was collected after centrifuging the samples at 18,000 rcf for 10 min at 4 °C (Eppendorf 5145 R, Hamburg, Germany). The MTBE was then removed by phase separation through the addition of 0.8 mL of water, and the aqueous methanolic extract was dried under a nitrogen stream (Biotage, TurboVap® LV, Uppsala, Sweden). The dried extracts were reconstituted in 100 µL of a 50% methanolic solution containing 0.1% formic acid.
A 5 µL sample was separated using a Kinetex Core-Shell F5 100Å (2.1 mm × 150 mm, 2.6 μM) column (Phenomenex, Torrence, CA, USA) using a binary gradient of water (Mobile Phase A) and acetonitrile (Mobile Phase B), both containing 0.1% formic acid. The flow rate was set at 200 µL per min, starting with 5% B, which linearly increased to 95% from 2.1 to 14 min; then B was decreased to 5% within a minute, and the system was equilibrated for 4 min. The column oven temperature was set at 30 °C, while the samples were kept at 4 °C. The analysis was performed with a Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) system (Nexera 40 Series, Shimadzu, Japan) combined with a Sciex Hybrid Triple Quad 7500 Low Mass Spectrometer (Framingham, MA, USA). The ion source was operated at temperature of 550 °C and spray voltage of 1600 v, Gas-1 at 40 psi, and Gas-2 at 60 psi for both positive and negative scheduled multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) methods, as described previously [20]. The cycle time was set at 1000 msec, with dwell times ranging from 3 to 250 ms. Double blank (100% methanol) and internal standard blank samples were run every 20 samples for quality control purposes. Unlabeled external standard mixes were run in parallel to the samples with known concentrations (ranging from 6250 nM to 0.38147 nM using a 1-fold serial dilution) to allow for quantitation of compounds. Sciex OS 3.1 software (AB Sciex, Framingham, MA, USA) was used to acquire and analyze chromatographic data. Peaks were integrated using area-under-the-curve and normalization was performed using isotopically labeled standards to account for any loss of material during sample preparation. In case of missing values for compounds, minimum values were imputed on a per group basis given that the compound was detected in at least one sample in that group. In case no values were detected for a metabolite (below lowest level of quantitation; LOQ) in either group, zero values were imputed to allow for statistical analysis.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.2.2 (The R Foundation, 2022, Indianapolis, IN, USA), except for the plant-secondary metabolite analysis, which were performed using MetaboAnalyst 6.0. Pen was considered the experimental unit, with ten pens per treatment. Functions from the dplyr package [21] and purrr package [22] were used for data merging and initial calculations. The dplyr [21], forcats [23], and tidyr [24] packages were utilized to summarize data from the individual level to the lot level. One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted for all quantitative traits. Assumptions of linear models (variance equality and homogeneity, error normality, freedom from outliers, etc.) were first tested using functions from the car package [25] and the rstatix package [26]. Linear models were constructed using the lmer function of the lme4 package [27,28]. Functions of the car package [25] developed the ANOVA models. For all weighted measures, initial shrunk body weight was included as a covariate. Animals were separated in 10 blocks by arrival date. Categorical data distributions were tested by ordinal logistic regression. The initial mixed model was constructed using the clmm function of the ordinal package [29] and analysis was conducted using functions of the RVAideMemoire package [30]. Estimated marginal means were calculated using the emmeans package of R [31]. Significance was assessed by ANOVA testing of the main effect of treatment. Phytochemicals were tested using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment. Statistical significance was evaluated compared to an α of 0.050. Tendencies were considered when 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10. Data visualizations were built in R using the ggplot2 package [32] and MetaboAnalyst 6.0.

3. Results

3.1. Performance Responses

Data are reported on a deads-and-removals-in basis. All cattle were on trial an average of 341 ± 2.7 days (p = 0.99; Table 2). Cattle supplemented with SBPX had an average 358 days on feed (DOF), while MON cattle had 357 DOF (±2 days; p = 0.19). A tendency was observed for SBPX steers to weigh more upon study enrollment (p = 0.06; 143 vs. 140 kg). Therefore, initial SBW was used as a covariate for all other weighted measures. Even though SBPX cattle consumed 0.28 kg more DM per day on average (p < 0.01), both groups had similar final SBW and ADG (p > 0.10). MON cattle had more efficient gain (p < 0.01). Likewise, SBPX cattle had greater daily cost by 14 cents compared to MON cattle (p < 0.01). Numerically, SBPX cattle had 1.6 percentage points greater natural program candidates and 2.0 percentage points fewer program fallouts (p > 0.10).

3.2. Health Responses

Total morbidity was similar (p = 0.82; Table 3) for both treatment groups. While first and second pull frequencies were similar (p > 0.10) across treatment groups, there was a tendency (p = 0.10) for a greater third pull frequency for MON lots. Still, there were no detectable differences in the percent of cattle that required first, second, or third treatment protocols (p > 0.10). A numeric USD 1.58 per head treated advantage in treatment cost favored the SBPX group but was not significant (p = 0.35). There was no difference in buller frequency, railer frequency, or total mortality (p > 0.10).
While total morbidity did not differ, minor differences in the frequency of diagnosed ailments were detected between treatment groups (Figure 1). Respiratory disorders impacted 3.9 percentage points more (p = 0.04) MON cattle; SBPX lots were more frequently (p = 0.03) afflicted with lameness and tended (p = 0.06) to be pulled more frequently for other reasons. There was no difference (p > 0.10) in the occurrence of bloat or coccidiosis between treatments.

3.3. Carcass Responses

There was no recorded difference (p > 0.10; Table 4) for HCW, 12th rib fat, or REA. Additionally, frequency distributions for QG, YG, and liver abscess prevalence were not affected by dietary treatment (p > 0.10).

3.4. Phytochemical Status

A full list of metabolites and their concentrations is found in Table 5. A total of 43 phenolics were detected in muscle from SBPX steers and 37 phenolics were detected in muscle from MON steers. The concentrations of 32 phenolics were greater in the SBPX group, with 18 showing a significant (p < 0.05) increase. One compound was significantly (all, p < 0.05) higher in the MON group. Additionally, the metabolite profiles of the SBPX cattle had lesser variation. Compounds found to be enriched in the SBPX samples compared to monensin included various phenolic-derived metabolites such as 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid and salicylic acid, and flavonoid-derived metabolites such as hyperoside and sophoricoside, indicating that supplementation with this proprietary blend of tannins increased plant-derived secondary metabolites in the tissue of SBPX animals as a result.

4. Discussion

This work evaluated the effects of a proprietary tannin-blend additive and monensin on feedlot cattle growth performance, carcass traits, and health traits. It is important to note that, as a limitation of the experimental design and considering that monensin feeding is standard practice in U.S. cattle feeding operations, a negative control was not utilized in this study. Outcomes are meant to compare the tannin blend to monensin directly and should be interpreted accordingly. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first studies to compare this proprietary blend of tannins directly to monensin in long-fed Holstein cattle. The only other known study to employ similar constructs has been reported by Carvalho et al. [15]. Other trials have utilized basal diets that may or may not include monensin, but this is generally kept consistent between control and tannin-containing treatments.

4.1. Performance Responses

Performance outcomes are for Holstein steers; therefore, outcomes may vary in other cattle types. Both initial shrunk body weight (SBW) and days on feed (DOF) in this work are consistent with a typical calf-fed management system in the Desert Southwest, in which calves transition from the calf ranch to the feedlot early in life. These calves are already accustomed to feed bunks and to consuming high-concentrate diets, so a diet adaptation period was not necessary [2]. Likewise, steers in the present study received the same basal diet throughout the entirety of the feeding period. However, trial induction was delayed, allowing for adjustment to the feedlot setting.
High levels of dietary tannins often result in a DMI decrease, potentially influenced by decreased palatability due to tannins’ astringent flavor [33,34] or a reduced rate of ruminal digestion and passage [7]. However, lower concentrations of tannins have less detrimental impacts on intake. While Koenig et al. [35] observed a tendency for DMI to decrease with inclusion of 3.5% CT extract in beef cattle finishing diets, no impact was reported at either 1.2% or 2.4%. Low levels of dietary tannin supplementation have repeatedly resulted in increased DMI in feedlot cattle. In two consecutive, 84 d finishing trials evaluating tannin level and source, Rivera-Méndez et al. [11] observed a linear tendency for DMI to increase with level of supplementation and for tannin inclusion to increase DMI. The highest inclusion utilized was 0.6% (DM basis)—much lower than that evaluated in [35]. Additionally, a 50:50 blend of quebracho and chestnut tannins resulted in the greatest DMI increase compared to either fed individually [11]. Tabke et al. [17] reported that supplementation of the same tannin blend promoted intake during the first half of the feeding period relative to a negative control. This is the exact combination of tannin-types and source utilized in the present study. Therefore, the 3.8% increase in DMI (p < 0.01) associated with ByProX feeding is consistent with previous findings. This outcome, however, should be regarded with reservations, as it is evaluated in comparison to cattle being fed monensin, a known intake-moderator [1,3]. On average, monensin results in a 3.0% depression in DMI [1]. Consequently, the 3.8% increase in SBPX DMI (p < 0.01) could be attributed to either a lack of monensin or a true effect of the tannin.
Even though greater DMI was observed among the SBPX cattle, less variation in daily feed deliveries, which reflect intake, was noted for cattle supplemented with the proprietary tannin blend. A similar response was previously noted in the first 28 days of a feedlot finishing period for Nellore bulls, where supplementation of a tannin-saponin blend additive with monensin limited DMI fluctuation compared to monensin fed alone [36]. It was hypothesized that inclusion of tannin-containing additives may more consistently protect against acidotic ruminal conditions, which in turn would limit feed intake variation [37]. In the present study, intake variation differed by treatment throughout the whole feeding period. However, the pen-level metrics recorded in this study do not allow for elucidation of potential individual-level mechanisms. Intake variation deserves more attention in future evaluations of tannin-blend supplementation.
With similar final SBW and ADG, efficiency differences were evident in this trial. Tannin inclusion rates at much higher levels in previous studies have not been associated with efficiency improvements compared to negative controls [33,38]. Koenig et al. [35] observed a tendency for 2.5% CT inclusion (DM basis) to actually depress gain-to-feed ratio (G:F) in high-protein feedlot finishing diets. However, this outcome could be correlated to the high dietary concentration of tannin utilized. At more conservative levels, Krueger et al. [16] noted no difference in G:F for cattle consuming high-grain diets supplemented with 1.5% (DM basis) of tannin extracts, regardless of dietary tannin source. Rivera-Méndez et al. [11] observed increased gain efficiency in an initial trial evaluating CT-tannin dose effects, but this outcome was unable to be replicated in a subsequent evaluation of tannin source at similar doses. Monensin has a long-established and proven reputation for improving efficiency. Historically, monensin has resulted in an average 6.4% improvement in feed efficiency (F:G), with a 2.5 to 3.5% improvement observed in studies conducted within the last three decades [1]. In the present study, cattle supplemented with monensin experienced more efficient gain than cattle supplemented with the proprietary tannin blend.

4.2. Health-Related Outcomes

4.2.1. Phytochemical Status

Tannins and their downstream metabolites have long been recognized and utilized in mammalian health for their medicinal properties [39]. The higher concentration of phenolics in the ByProX muscle tissue samples aligns with existing literature, suggesting that phenolic-derived metabolites are absorbed into biological systems [40]. Dietary polyphenols are modified by microbiota and first-pass metabolism, resulting in different forms in the blood and tissues compared to the original dietary source found in plants [41,42]. Consequently, higher levels of hydroxybenzoic acids and hydrolyzable tannins, including 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid, 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid, salicylic acid, 4-ethylphenol, and ellagic acid were observed in the ByProX group (Table 5). These metabolites are typically considered biomarkers of a diet higher in phenolics [43], and both chestnut [44] and quebracho [45] are considered rich in phenolic acids such as benzoic acid and its metabolites. Additionally, higher amounts of tannic acid metabolites epicatechin gallate and epigallocatechin gallate were detected in the ByproX group, which similarly reflects their presence in the chestnut-derived product fed to cattle in this work [46].

4.2.2. Health Responses

The numeric advantage in natural program candidates and lower rate of fallouts associated with SBPX inclusion is attributable to variation in morbidity, as there was no difference in mortality or railer incidence. Rather, MON cattle tended to require a third pull more frequently, which indicates an additional opportunity to require treatment and correlates with the numerically greater treatment cost associated with MON lots. Treatment with antimicrobials excluded cattle from the natural program, designating them as a fallout. At the time cattle were marketed, natural program candidates were receiving an average 7.00 USD/cwt premium above fallout cattle that had to be marketed in the conventional program. However, this does not adequately account for the cost of forfeiting performance advantages associated with conventional technologies, but then also failing to secure premiums to offset these natural consequences. Likewise, health outcomes associated with addition of this proprietary tannin blend hold significant economic relevance.
The explanation for this third pull difference may be further associated with the variation in predominant health diagnoses between treatments. MON cattle were more frequently diagnosed with respiratory illness (p = 0.04), and 79% of all third pulls were made for respiratory-related ailments. Tannins have reported inhibitory action on many pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, Clostridium, and Salmonella [47,48,49]. This inhibitory action has been known to extend to several agents implicated in the bovine respiratory disease (BRD) complex, including Mannheimia haemolytica, Mycoplasma bovis, and bovine adeno-associated virus [50,51,52]. Therefore, the lesser frequency of diagnosed respiratory ailments within the SBPX cattle (p = 0.04) could be associated with antibacterial and/or antiviral-like properties of the proprietary blend of tannins supplemented in this study. However, these properties are highly variable based on tannin type, source, and concentration [48]. Additional research is needed to evaluate the potential inhibitory effect and mode of action for the proprietary tannin-blend product supplemented in the present study on pathogenic agents of interest.
Differences in the frequency of lameness and other diagnoses may be related more to individual animal variation rather than an effect of treatment. Lameness incidence is rarely mentioned in tannin research, and a tannin-containing blend product reported no impact on lameness in finishing cattle [53]. While there is no evidence to support that tannin feeding could cause lameness, monensin has been evaluated as a potential preventive with varying outcomes. While Heuer et al. [54] noted that dairy cows supplemented with monensin prepartum had a lower case and leg incidence of non-infectious lameness, other evaluations found that treatment with monensin did not alter the risk of cows developing lameness [55,56,57]. Inconsistent findings leave the verdict up for discussion—likewise, lameness prevention does not register on monensin’ s list of positive feedlot impacts. Future attention should be paid to feedlot cattle lameness incidence in the presence of tannin or absence of monensin to rule out unintended detriments.
On the other hand, the ability to reduce bloat occurrence is one of the more frequently documented tannin-associated health benefits. In pasture situations, tannin-containing forages are considered “bloat-free” and can be incorporated in richer forage offerings, like alfalfa or clover, to control bloat [7,58,59]. This effect is particularly prominent in condensed tannins, which exhibit preventive actions at concentrations as low as 1–5 g/kg [59]. While the specific mode of action has yet to be delineated, proposed mechanisms include reduction in protein solubility through precipitation during chewing and rumination, destabilization of the proteinaceous foam associated with frothy bloat, and inhibition of slime-producing ruminal bacteria [58,60,61]. Monensin has also been recognized as a bloat-mitigator, with the ability to decrease both the occurrence and the severity of bloat [3,62]. These noted similar impacts make it unsurprising that bloat occurrence did not differ by treatment in the present study (p = 0.97).
Originally recognized as a poultry coccidiostat, monensin is still labeled for the prevention and control of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria bovis and Eimeria zuernii in cattle at all production stages (Rumensin®, Elanco, Greenfield, Indiana) [63,64]. Exclusion, therefore, makes coccidiosis incidence a health risk of particular concern, especially in newly received calves. Tannins may be effective in coccidiosis prevention, as they have been long utilized for the natural control of parasites. Condensed tannins, specifically quebracho and sericea lespedeza, have been recognized for their potent ability to reduce fecal egg count, larval development, and worm burden in small ruminants [65,66]. Parisi et al. [67] found that quebracho (CT) and chestnut (HT) tannin extracts were both capable of reducing Eimeria spp. oocyst excretion. This potential for tannins to also work as coccidiosis-preventatives is consistent with no differences in occurrence in the present study.

4.3. Carcass Responses

Carcass outcomes associated with dietary tannin inclusion are highly variable, with tannin source, cattle type, and diet potentially influencing results. In the present study, carcass characteristics were not affected (p ≥ 0.20) by dietary treatment. These findings coincide with previous research [15,17,35] in which carcass measures such as hot carcass weight (HCW), longissimus muscle area (LM area), quality grade, and liver score were unaffected by dietary supplementation of either mimosa (CT) tannin (2.50% DM basis, [35]) or a quebracho (CT)–chestnut (HT) tannin blend (0.15% DM basis, [15]; 0.30% or 0.60% DM basis, [17]). In contrast, Camacho et al. [68] observed a 25.5 kg increase in HCW and a 3.4 cm2 increase in LM area (adjusted for final BW difference) for B. indicus × B. taurus bull calves supplemented with 0.32% (DM) of the same quebracho–chestnut tannin blend (ByPro). When compared directly to monensin addition in feedlot finishing diets of Nellore and Nellore × Angus bulls, ByPro supplementation resulted in an approximate 9 kg increase in HCW [13]. Improvements in HCW were recorded for ByPro versus a negative control and for the combination of ByPro and zilpaterol hydrochloride compared to the beta agonist alone [69]. BX (the proprietary tannin blend plus saponins) inclusion has also been noted to increase the HCW of bulls finished in both feedlot [70] and pasture [14] settings.
The major defining difference between this study and other studies is the utilization of intact bulls, as the aforementioned studies were conducted on implanted steers. Additionally, Latin American systems often target shorter feeding periods and feed diets that maximize lean carcass weight, while cattle feeding in the United States has systemic aims towards improved carcass quality, often associated with increased fat deposition. Diet characteristics likewise differ significantly and might also influence results. Camacho et al. [68] provided a basal diet of dry ground corn, canola meal, and dry distillers grain, and the ration utilized by Nascimento et al. [13] consisted primarily of cracked corn, soybean meal, and sugarcane bagasse. These are very different from the steam-flaked corn-based ration utilized in the present study and by both Carvalho et al. [15] and Tabke et al. [17]. Differences in dietary protein level and source (true protein vs. non-protein nitrogen) along with variation in grain processing method and subsequent carbohydrate availability could play a role in outcome variation.

5. Conclusions

Feedlot performance is a concern when monensin is excluded from finishing diets, and ByProX inclusion did not replicate the same efficiency advantages. Economic attention should be paid to greater DMI and daily cost when cattle do not receive monensin. Future evaluations should consider potential applications of this proprietary tannin blend in conventional systems, where it may function synergistically with ionophores and where health and muscle growth, rather than fattening, are the primary focus. Monensin also plays a critical role in mitigating digestive disturbances—a characteristic which is especially crucial when feeding Holsteins. Though ByProX did not moderate DMI, it did stabilize intake variability, and bloat occurrence did not differ between ByProX- and monensin-supplemented cattle, which could make it a valuable tool in situations where monensin cannot be used or where days of use are limited. In natural or organic marketing programs that restrict the use of antibiotics, tannin blends could serve as safe replacements for monensin as one potential means of limiting economically problematic losses from bloat deaths. The lesser frequency of respiratory illness amongst tannin-supplemented lots suggests that ByProX might possess antimicrobial-like properties, which could be facilitated through greater phenolic accumulation in tissue, though further research should be conducted to evaluate this possibility. Health outcomes from the present study suggest that Silvafeed ByProX may be able to maintain cattle health in the absence of conventional additives like monensin and may serve to help limit antibiotic necessity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.J.J. and J.L.B.; data curation, S.M.B.-S.; formal analysis, S.M.B.-S.; funding acquisition, J.L.B.; investigation, J.D.C., M.A., S.v.V., S.M.B.-S. and L.K.F.; methodology, J.L.B.; project administration, B.J.J. and J.L.B.; resources, G.D.H., J.D.C. and B.J.J.; supervision, B.J.J., J.L.B. and G.D.H.; validation, B.J.J. and J.L.B.; visualization, S.M.B.-S., M.A. and S.v.V.; writing—original, S.M.B.-S.; writing—review and editing, B.J.J., L.K.F. and G.D.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by the Gordon W. Davis Regents Chair Endowment at Texas Tech University. Silvateam U.S.A. donated the product for the study and provided funding for collection of carcass data, muscle samples, and analytical analysis of phytochemical metabolites.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The following experiment was a collaborative effort conducted at a commercial feedlot in Brawley, CA, USA. All research followed the guidelines stated in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching [19]. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Animal Use and Care Committee of Gansu Agricultural University (GAU-Eth-VMC-2021–020) date: 12 March 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express appreciation to Mesquite Cattle Feeders for their support of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

G.D.H. is employed by Silvateam U.S.A. B.J.J. is the Endowed Chair of the Gordon W. Davis Regents. J.L.B. has been involved as a consultant for Mesquite Cattle Feeders, owned by J.D.C. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the original manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the readability of Table 5. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

References

  1. Duffield, T.F.; Merrill, J.K.; Bagg, R.N. Meta-analysis of the effects of monensin in beef cattle on feed efficiency, body weight gain, and dry matter intake. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 4583–4592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Duff, G.C.; McMurphy, C.P. Feeding Holstein steers from start to finish. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2007, 23, 281–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Goodrich, R.D.; Garrett, J.E.; Gast, D.R.; Kirick, M.A.; Larson, D.A.; Meiske, J.C. Influence of monensin on the performance of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1984, 58, 1484–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schelling, G.T. Monensin mode of action in the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 1984, 58, 1518–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Raun, A.P.; Cooley, C.O.; Potter, E.L.; Rathmacher, R.P.; Richardson, L.F. Effect of monensin on feed efficiency of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1976, 43, 670–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Richardson, L.F.; Raun, A.P.; Potter, E.L.; Cooley, C.O.; Rathmacher, R.P. Effect of monensin on rumen fermentation in vitro and in vivo. J. Anim. Sci. 1976, 43, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mueller-Harvey, I. Unraveling the conundrum of tannins in animal nutrition and health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 2010–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mangan, J.L. Nutritional effects of tannins in animal feeds. Nutr. Res. Rev. 1988, 1, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Swain, T. Tannins and lingnins. In Herbivores, Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites, 1st ed.; Rosenthal, G.A., Janzen, D.H., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979; Volume 1, pp. 657–682. [Google Scholar]
  10. Huang, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhao, G.; Hu, T.; Wang, Y. Potential and challenges of tannins as an alternative to in-feed antibiotics for farm animal production. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rivera-Méndez, C.; Plascencia, A.; Torrentera, N.; Zinn, R.A. Effect of level and source of supplemental tannin on growth performance of steers during the late finishing phase. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2017, 45, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barajas, R.B.; Cervantes, J.; Espino, M.A.; Camacho, A.; Verdugo, M.; Flores, L.R.; Loneli, J.J.; Romo, J.A. Effect of tannin extracts supplementation on feedlot performance and plasma urea nitrogen of yearling bulls fed dry-ground corn-based diets containing corn-DDG and cane molasses. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90 (Suppl. S3), 600. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nascimento, K.S.; Bomfim, L.E.L.M.; Couto, V.R.M.; Silva, M.B.; Lopes, A.L.A.; Fernandes, M.H.M.R.; Manella, M.Q.; Junior, M.V.C.F.; Fernandes, J.J.R. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of bulls fed tannins associated with or not with monensin. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2024, 8, txae136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Manella, M.Q.; Coan, R.; Mesquita, W.; Paula, E.; Arnandes, R.B. PSXI-20 Proteic dry supplements enriched with a blend of tannin-based extract enhance the performance of grass-fed cattle during the rainy season in tropical regions. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 102, 762–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carvalho, P.H.V.; Latack, B.C.; Ferraz, M.V.C.; Nolasco, L.J.R.P.; Meireles, W.R.; Oliveira, H.O.M.; Zinn, R.A. Influence of low-level tannin supplementation on comparative growth performance of Holstein and Angus × Holstein cross calf-fed concentrate-based finishing diets for 328 d. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 102, skae087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Krueger, W.K.; Gutierrez-Bañuelos, H.; Carstens, G.E.; Min, B.R.; Pinchak, W.E.; Gomez, R.R.; Anderson, R.C.; Krueger, N.A.; Forbes, T.D.A. Effects of dietary tannin source on performance, feed efficiency, ruminal fermentation, and carcass and non-carcass traits in steers fed a high-grain diet. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2010, 159, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tabke, M.C.; Sarturi, J.O.; Galyean, M.L.; Trojan, S.J.; Brooks, J.C.; Johnson, B.J.; Martin, J.; Baggerman, J.; Thompson, A.J. Effects of tannic acid on growth performance, carcass characteristics, digestibility, nitrogen volatilization, and meat lipid oxidation of steers fed steam-flaked corn-based finishing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 5124–5136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Scalbert, A. Antimicrobial properties of tannins. Phytochemistry 1991, 30, 3875–3883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. FASS. Federation of Animal Science Societies, and Consortium for Developing a Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. In Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, 3rd ed.; FASS—Federation of Animal Science Societies: Champaign, IL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. Krusinski, L.; Maciel, I.C.F.; van Vliet, S.; Ahsin, M.; Lu, G.; Rowntree, J.E.; Fenton, J.I. Measuring the phytochemical richness of meat: Effects of grass/grain finishing systems and grapeseed extract supplementation on the fatty acid and phytochemical content of beef. Foods 2023, 12, 3547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wickham, H.; François, R.; Henry, L.; Müller, K.; Vaughan, D. R Package; Version 1.1.4; dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wickham, H.; Henry, L. R Package; Version 1.0.2; purr: Functional Programming Tools; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wickham, H. R Package; Version 1.0.0; forcats: Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors); RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wickham, H.; Vaughan, D.; Girlich, M. R Package; Version 1.3.1; tidyr: Tidy Messy Data; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fox, J.; Weisberg, S.; Price, B.; Adler, D.; Bates, D.; Buad-Bovy, G.; Bolker, B.; Ellison, S.; Firth, D.; Friendly, M.; et al. R Package; Version 2023; car: Companion to Applied Regression; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kassambra, A. R Package; rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kuznetsova, A.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Christensen, R.H.B. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 2017, 82, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Christensen, R. R Package; Version 2023; ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  30. Herve, M. R Package; Version 2023; Package ‘RVAideMemoire’: Testing and plotting procedures for biostatistics; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lenth, R.V.; Bolker, B.; Buerkner, P.; Giné-Vázquez, I.; Herve, M.; Jung, M.; Love, J.; Miguez, F.; Riebl, H.; Singmann, H. R Package; Version 2023; emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wickham, H. R Package; ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fitri, A.; Yanza, Y.R.; Jayanegara, A.; Ridwan, R.; Astuti, W.D.; Sarwono, K.A.; Fidriyanto, R.; Rohmatussolihat, R.; Widyastuti, Y.; Obitsu, T. Divergence effects between dietary Acacia and Quebracho tannin extracts in nutrient utilization, performance, and methane emission of ruminants: A meta-analysis. Anim. Sci. J. 2022, 93, e13765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kumar, R.; Singh, M. Tannins: Their adverse role in ruminant nutrition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1984, 32, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Koenig, K.M.; Beauchemin, K.A. Effect of feeding condensed tannins in high protein finishing diets containing corn distiller grains on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility, and route of nitrogen excretion in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 4398–4413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ferracini, J.G.; Lelis, A.L.J.; Polli, D.; Gasparim, M.B.; Feba, L.T.; Prado, I.N.D.; Millen, D.D. Feedlot performance of Nellore bulls fed high-concentrate diets containing the association of tannins and saponins with sodium monensin. R. Bras. Zootec. 2024, 53, e20230104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Owens, F.N.; Secrist, D.S.; Hill, W.J.; Gill, D.R. Acidosis in cattle: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Orzuna-Orzuna, J.F.; Dorantes-Iturbide, G.; Lara-Bueno, A.; Mendoza-Martinez, G.D.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Hernandez-Garcia, P.A. Effects of dietary tannins supplementation on growth performance, rumen fermentation, and enteric methane emissions in beef cattle: A meta-analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vilhelmova-Ilieva, N.; Galabov, A.S.; Mileva, M. Tannins as Antiviral Agents. In Tannins—Structural Properties, Biological Properties and Current Knowledge; Aires, A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  40. Scalbert, A.; Morand, C.; Manach, C.; Rémésy, C. Absorption and metabolism of polyphenols in the gut and impact on health. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2002, 56, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kroon, P.A.; Clifford, M.N.; Crozier, A.; Day, A.J.; Donovan, J.L.; Manach, C.; Williamson, G. How should we assess the effects of exposure to dietary polyphenols in vitro? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 80, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Williamson, G.; Clifford, M.N. Role of the small intestine, colon, and microbiota in determining the metabolic fate of polyphenols. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2017, 139, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mosele, J.I.; Macià, A.; Motilya, M.J. Metabolic and microbial modulation of the large intestine ecosystem by non-absorbed diet phenolic compounds: A review. Molecules 2015, 20, 17429–17468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xu, Z.; Meenu, M.; Chen, P.; Xu, B. Comparative study on phytochemical profiles and antioxidant capacities of chestnuts produced in different geographic area in China. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Marín-Martinez, R.; Veloz-García, R.; Veloz-Rodríguez, R.; Guzmán-Maldonado, S.H.; Loarca-Pina, G.; Cardador-Martinez, A.; Guevara-Olvera, L.; Miranda-López, R.; Torres-Pacheco, I.; Pérez, C.P.; et al. Antimutagenic and antioxidant activities of quebracho phenolics (Schinopsis balansae) recovered from tannery wastewaters. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Echegaray, N.; Gomez, B.; Barba, F.J.; Franco, D.; Estévez, M.; Caraballo, J.; Marszalek, K.; Lorenzo, J.M. Chestnuts and by-products as source of natural antioxidants in meat and meat products: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 82, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, X.L.; Hao, Y.W.; Jin, L.; Xu, Z.J.; McAllister, T.A.; Wang, Y. Anti-Escherichia coli O157:H7 properties of purple prairie clover and sainfoin condensed tannins. Molecules 2013, 18, 2183–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Min, B.R.; Pinchak, W.E.; Merkel, R.; Walker, S.; Tomita, G.; Anderson, R.C. Comparative antimicrobial activity of tannin extracts from perennial plants on mastitis pathogens. Sci. Res. Essays 2008, 3, 66–73. [Google Scholar]
  49. Chung, K.T.; Lu, Z.; Chou, M.W. Mechanism of inhibition of tannic acid and related compounds on the growth of intestinal bacteria. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1998, 36, 1053–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rajamanickam, K.; Yang, J.; Sakharkar, M.K. Phytochemicals as alternatives to antibiotics against major pathogens involved in bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and bovine mastitis (BM). Bioinformation 2019, 15, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McGill, J.L.; Sacco, R.E. The immunology of bovine respiratory disease: Recent advancements. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2020, 36, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Di Pasquale, G.L.; Ostedgaard, L.; Vermeer, D.; Swaim, W.D.; Karp, P.; Chiorini, J.A. Bovine AAV transcytosis inhibition by tannic acid results in functional expression of CTFR in vitro and altered biodistribution in vivo. Gene Ther. 2012, 19, 576–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sgoifo Rossi, C.A.; Grossi, S.; Compiani, R.; Baldi, G. Effect of a blend of essential oils, bioflavonoids, and tannins on production performance, health, immune functionality, and antioxidant status in fattening beef cattle. Large Anim. Rev. 2023, 29, 163–170. [Google Scholar]
  54. Heuer, C.; Schukken, Y.H.; Jonker, L.J.; Wilkinson, J.I.; Noorhuizen, J.P. Effect of monensin on blood ketone bodies, incidence, and recurrence of disease and fertility in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 1085–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Duffield, T.F.; Bagg, R.; DesCoteaux, L.; Bouchard, E.; Brodeur, M.; DuTremblay, D.; Keefe, G.; LeBlanc, S.; Dick, P. Prepartum monensin for the reduction of energy associated disease in postpartum dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Duffield, T.F.; Leslie, K.E.; Sandals, D.; Lissemore, K.; McBride, B.W.; Lumsden, J.H.; Dick, P.; Bagg, R. Effect of monensin-controlled release capsule on cow health and reproductive performance. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 2377–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Beckett, S.; Lean, I.; Dyson, R.; Tranter, W.; Wade, L. Effects of monensin on the reproduction, health, and milk production of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 1563–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Wang, Y.; Majak, W.; McAllister, T.A. Frothy bloat in ruminants: Cause, occurrence, and mitigation strategies. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 172, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, Y.; Tanner, G.; Larkin, P. The DMACA-HCl protocol and the threshold proanthocyanidin content for bloat safety in forage legumes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1996, 70, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Waghorn, G.C.; McNabb, W.C. Consequences of plant phenolic compounds for productivity and health of ruminants. Proc. Nurt. Soc. 2003, 62, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. McMahon, L.R.; McAllister, T.A.; Berg, B.P.; Majak, W.; Acharya, S.N.; Popp, J.D.; Coulman, B.E.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, K.J. A review of the effects of forage condensed tannins on ruminal fermentation and bloat in grazing cattle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2000, 80, 469–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gadberry, S.; Lalman, D.; White, F.; Linneen, S.; Beck, P. Meta-analysis of the effects of monensin on growth and bloat of cattle on pasture. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2022, 6, txac031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nagaraja, T.G. Ionophores and antibiotics in ruminants. In Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Feeding, 1st ed.; Wallace, R.J., Chesson, A., Eds.; VCH Publishers Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 173–204. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bergen, W.G.; Bates, D.B. Ionophores: Their effect on production efficiency and mode of action. J. Anim. Sci. 1984, 58, 1465–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Min, B.R.; Hart, S.P.; Miller, D.; Tomita, G.M.; Loetz, E.; Sahlu, T. The effects of grazing forage containing condensed tannins on gastro-intestinal parasite infection and milk composition in Angora does. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 130, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Butter, N.L.; Dawson, J.M.; Wakelin, D.; Buttery, P.J. Effect of dietary condensed tannins on gastrointestinal nematodes. J. Agric. Sci. 2001, 137, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Parisi, F.; Mancini, S.; Mazzei, M.; Forzan, M.; Turchi, B.; Perrucci, S.; Poli, A.; Paci, G. Effect of dietary supplementation of a mix of chestnut and quebracho tannins on intestinal morphology, bacterial load, Eimeria spp. oocyst excretion, and immune response after vaccination in rabbits. Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2018, 13, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Camacho, A.; Cervantes, B.J.; Espino, M.A.; Verdugo, M.; Flores, L.R.; Romo, J.A.; Barajas, R. W295 Influence of addition to tannins-extract in low concentration of dietary dry matter on carcass characteristics of bull-calves. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89 (Suppl. S1), 615. [Google Scholar]
  69. Barajas, R.; Cervantes, B.J.; Espino, M.A.; Camacho, A.; Verdugo, M.; Flores, L.R.; Romo, J.A. Interaction of tannin extract and zilpaterol hydrochloride supplementation on feedlot performance of bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91 (Suppl. S2), 8. [Google Scholar]
  70. Manella, M.Q.; Campanini, A.; Boin, C.; Paula, E.; Arnandes, R.B.; Lopes, V. Use of a commercial blend of tannins as feed additive for feed lot cattle on large pen trial improves carcass weight and carcass feed conversion. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 102 (Suppl. S3), 778–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vetsci 12 00166 g001
Figure 1. The frequency of illness diagnoses associated with health challenges of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 g/hd Rumensin™ 90). Letter superscripts are included to illustrate means that are different by pairwise comparison by either p ≤ 0.05 (a, b) or p ≤ 0.10 (x, y). “Respiratory” refers to an illness that afflicted the upper respiratory tract (p = 0.04). “Lameness” refers to afflictions that impacted cattle mobility, such as foot rot and joint illness (p = 0.03). “Bloat” refers to ruminal tympany and includes gaseous and frothy varieties. “Coccidiosis” refers to cattle with symptoms consistent with the parasitic disease caused by Eimeria spp. of protozoa. “Other” refers to any other treatments made for clinical symptoms of illness not representative of the other diagnostic categories (p = 0.06).
Figure 1. The frequency of illness diagnoses associated with health challenges of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 g/hd Rumensin™ 90). Letter superscripts are included to illustrate means that are different by pairwise comparison by either p ≤ 0.05 (a, b) or p ≤ 0.10 (x, y). “Respiratory” refers to an illness that afflicted the upper respiratory tract (p = 0.04). “Lameness” refers to afflictions that impacted cattle mobility, such as foot rot and joint illness (p = 0.03). “Bloat” refers to ruminal tympany and includes gaseous and frothy varieties. “Coccidiosis” refers to cattle with symptoms consistent with the parasitic disease caused by Eimeria spp. of protozoa. “Other” refers to any other treatments made for clinical symptoms of illness not representative of the other diagnostic categories (p = 0.06).
Vetsci 12 00166 g001
Table 1. Formulated dry matter ingredient inclusion in basal diet.
Table 1. Formulated dry matter ingredient inclusion in basal diet.
Finishing Diet
Formulated DM inclusion, %
  Steam-flaked corn59.43
  Roughage blend12.96
  Dried distillers grain8.14
  Bakery waste11.40
  Fat blend4.26
  Protein supplement1.43
  Mineral supplement 12.37
Chemical analysis
  Dry matter, %82.90
  Crude protein, %13.31
  Acid detergent fiber (ADF), %7.92
  Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), %17.29
  Physically effective NDF, %8.28
  Crude fat, %8.65
  NEM, Mcal/kg2.34
  NEG, Mcal/kg1.47
  • 1 Supplement was formulated to include 25.842% calcium, 15.000% salt, and 1.078% magnesium.
Table 2. Feedlot performance of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90).
Table 2. Feedlot performance of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90).
Treatment
MONSBPXSEM 1p-Value 2
Pens, n1010
Days on trial3413412.70.99
Total days on feed3573582.00.19
Initial SBW, kg140 y143 x3.60.06
Final SBW, kg5695702.70.82
DMI, kg/day7.34 b7.62 a0.060<0.01
ADG, kg1.261.250.0060.71
Gain:Feed0.17 a0.16 b0.001<0.01
Daily cost 3, USD3.97 b4.11 a0.049<0.01
Daily per head DM deliveries CV, %20.95 a19.75 b0.858<0.01
Natural program fallouts 4, %8.126.091.3710.13
Shipped for natural program 5, %89.5791.131.6190.31
  • 1 The largest standard error of the mean.
  • 2 Tested as the ANOVA significance of the main effect.
  • 3 Daily cost references are cost-specific to feed and other daily production inputs but do not include costs associated with processing or health treatment.
  • 4 Cattle that required antibiotic health treatment that nullified their eligibility to be harvested in the intended natural program.
  • 5 Cattle that remained eligible to be harvested in the intended natural program and that were likewise eligible for associated premiums.
  • a, b Means without a common superscript are different by pairwise comparison (p ≤ 0.05).
  • x, y Means without a common superscript are different by pairwise comparison (p ≤ 0.10).
Table 3. The health responses of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90).
Table 3. The health responses of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90).
Treatment
MONSBPXSEM 1p-Value 2
Pens, n1010
Head per pen7273
Total Morbidity, %25.4926.032.9870.82
First Treatment Protocol, %22.7723.792.5080.65
    First Pull, %15.4917.621.7600.27
    Second Pull, %4.944.961.0430.98
    Third Pull, %1.97 x0.96 y0.6430.10
Second Treatment Protocol, %1.791.630.5810.80
Third Treatment Protocol, %0.790.550.3930.54
Treatment cost, USD/hd10.088.501.6600.35
Bullers, %5.915.751.1410.90
Railers, %0.700.690.3130.97
Total Mortality, %1.542.110.6120.41
  • 1 The largest standard error of the mean.
  • 2 Tested as the ANOVA significance of the main effect.
  • x, y Means without a common superscript are different by pairwise comparison (p ≤ 0.10).
Table 4. Carcass characteristics of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90) after 358 ± 2 days on feed.
Table 4. Carcass characteristics of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90) after 358 ± 2 days on feed.
Treatment
MONSBPXSEM 1p-Value 2
Hot carcass weight, kg362.3363.92.080.53
12th rib fat, cm. 0.950.950.0250.90
Ribeye area, sq. cm. 74.9474.390.6430.44
Quality grade distribution 3 0.22
   Prime, %13.2510.941.3460.20
   Choice, %84.2386.321.4480.29
   Select, %1.422.020.7010.37
   Standard, %0.790.300.3510.25
Yield grade distribution 3 0.79
   USDA YG 1, %2.202.420.5990.79
   USDA YG 2, %8.076.441.7970.23
   USDA YG 3, %88.5690.241.9300.31
   USDA YG 4, %0.250.240.2520.97
   USDA YG 5, %0.320.000.2220.99
Total liver abscess, %10.0812.271.2770.21
  • 1 The largest standard error of the mean.
  • 2 Tested as the ANOVA significance of the main effect.
  • 3 Tested using ordinal logistic regression.
Table 5. Polyphenol status (μg/100 g muscle) of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90) after 358 ± 2 days on feed.
Table 5. Polyphenol status (μg/100 g muscle) of Holstein steers supplemented with either a proprietary tannin-blend additive (SBPX; 14,500 mg/hd Silvafeed ByProX) or monensin (MON; 320 mg/hd Rumensin™ 90) after 358 ± 2 days on feed.
Treatment
Polyphenol 1MONSBPXSEM 2p-Value 3
AlkaloidsHordenine75.7525.4832.420.05
FlavonoidsEpicatechin gallate0.0010.040.030.25
Epigallocatechin gallate<LOQ0.040.01<0.01
Apigenin0.711.531.300.04
Chrysoeriol0.020.340.250.02
Diosmetin0.050.380.260.06
Apiin0.631.780.880.52
Isovitexin0.070.420.280.16
Linarin0.201.250.840.10
Orientin<LOQ0.320.23<0.01
Schaftoside0.844.152.900.16
Sophoricoside0.130.720.06<0.01
Hyperoside1.992.20.070.10
Narcissoside0.120.820.560.43
Rutin0.061.480.950.09
Isorhamnetin21.742.8113.220.17
Kaempferide<LOQ0.210.17<0.01
Phenolic acidsGallic acid0.010.090.040.57
2,6-Dihydroxybenzoic acid<LOQ0.060.03<0.01
3,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid 0.050.040.020.04
4-Hydroxybenzoic acid2.332.910.470.65
Syringic acid0.030.040.020.52
Vanillic acid0.140.280.110.42
Caffeic acid0.080.490.00<0.01
Chlorogenic acid0.010.170.09<0.01
p-Coumaric acid0.140.620.190.01
trans Ferulic acid0.0030.150.090.11
Salicylic acid0.140.290.050.03
4-Ethylphenol5.3710.264.080.02
Gut-derived phenolic metabolitesCatechol sulfate0.830.620.140.39
p-Cresol sulfate51.3742.029.040.63
Hippuric acid29.7322.506.660.52
Dimethyl Sulfone3.722.400.770.33
OthersEctoine1.940.091.600.06
Ergothioneine3.085.871.450.28
Hercynine29.6315.3512.170.65
Hypaphorine1.624.781.230.04
Isocitric lactone6.106.881.440.80
Imperatorin0.110.800.650.06
Morin1.830.071.490.63
Trigonelline3.562.311.310.44
Tyrosol0.080.150.030.04
  • 1 Information about individual metabolites can be sourced from the Human Metabolome Database (HMDB).
  • 2 The largest standard error of the mean.
  • 3 Tested as the ANOVA significance of the main effect. <LOQ: below the lowest level of quantification.
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

Bowman-Schnug, S.M.; Fuerniss, L.K.; Cameron, J.D.; Beckett, J.L.; Ahsin, M.; van Vliet, S.; Hufstedler, G.D.; Johnson, B.J. Replacement of Monensin with a Proprietary Tannin-Blend Additive in Calf-Fed Holstein Steer Diets. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020166

AMA Style

Bowman-Schnug SM, Fuerniss LK, Cameron JD, Beckett JL, Ahsin M, van Vliet S, Hufstedler GD, Johnson BJ. Replacement of Monensin with a Proprietary Tannin-Blend Additive in Calf-Fed Holstein Steer Diets. Veterinary Sciences. 2025; 12(2):166. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020166

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bowman-Schnug, Sydney M., Luke K. Fuerniss, Joe D. Cameron, Jonathon L. Beckett, Muhammad Ahsin, Stephan van Vliet, Guy D. Hufstedler, and Bradley J. Johnson. 2025. "Replacement of Monensin with a Proprietary Tannin-Blend Additive in Calf-Fed Holstein Steer Diets" Veterinary Sciences 12, no. 2: 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020166

APA Style

Bowman-Schnug, S. M., Fuerniss, L. K., Cameron, J. D., Beckett, J. L., Ahsin, M., van Vliet, S., Hufstedler, G. D., & Johnson, B. J. (2025). Replacement of Monensin with a Proprietary Tannin-Blend Additive in Calf-Fed Holstein Steer Diets. Veterinary Sciences, 12(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020166

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