This review examines the role of nutritional strategies to improve lifetime performance in ruminants. Strategies to increase ruminants' productive longevity by means of nutritional interventions provide the opportunity not only to increase their lifetime performances and their welfare, but also to decrease their environmental impact. This paper will also address how such nutritional interventions can increase herd efficiency and farm profitability. The key competencies reviewed in this article are redox balance, skeletal development and health, nutrient utilization and sustainability, which includes rearing ruminants without antibiotics and methane mitigation. While the relationships between these areas are extremely complex, a multidisciplinary approach is needed to develop nutritional strategies that would allow ruminants to become more resilient to the environmental and physiological challenges that they will have to endure during their productive career. As the demand of ruminant products from the rapidly growing human world population is ever-increasing, the aim of this review is to present animal and veterinary scientists as well as nutritionists a multidisciplinary approach towards a sustainable ruminant production, while improving their nutrient utilization, health and welfare, and mitigation of their carbon footprint at the same time.

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance responses of finishing feedlot cattle to dietary addition of essential oils and exogenous enzymes. The treatments in each experiment consisted of (dry matter basis): MON - sodium monensin (26 mg/kg); BEO- a blend of essential oils (90 mg/kg); BEO+MON- a blend of essential oils plus monensin (90 mg/kg + 26 mg/kg, respectively); BEO+AM- a blend of essential oils plus exogenous α-amylase (90 mg/kg + 560 mg/kg, respectively); and BEO+AM+PRO - a blend of essential oils plus exogenous α-amylase and exogenous protease (90 mg/kg + 560 mg/kg + 840, mg/kg respectively). Exp. 1 consisted of a 93-d finishing period using 300 Nellore bulls in a randomized complete block design. Animals fed BEO had higher dry matter intake (P < 0.001) but similar feed efficiency to animals fed MON (P ≥ 0.98). Compared with MON, the combination of BEO+AM resulted in 810 g greater dry matter intake (P = 0.001), 190 g greater average daily gain (P = 0.04), 18 kg heavier final body weight (P = 0.04) and 12 kg heavier hot carcass weight (P = 0.02), although feed efficiency was not significantly different between BEO+AM and MON (P = 0.89). Combining BEO+MON tended to decrease hot carcass weight compared with BEO alone (P = 0.08) but not compared with MON (P = 0.98). Treatments did not impact observed dietary net energy values (P ≥ 0.74) or the observed:expected net energy ratio (P ≥ 0.11). In Exp. 2, five ruminally cannulated Nellore steers were used to evaluate intake, apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients, and ruminal parameters in a 5 × 5 Latin Square design. Feeding BEO increased the total tract digestibility of CP compared to MON (P = 0.03). Compared to MON, feeding the combination of BEO+MON increased the intake of CP (P = 0.04) and NDF (P = 0.05), with no effects on total tract digestibility of nutrients (P ≥ 0.56), except for a tendency (P = 0.09) to increase CP digestibility. Intakes of all nutrients measured, except for EE (P = 0.16) were greater in animals fed BEO+AM when compared with MON (P ≤ 0.03), with no differences on total tract nutrient digestibilities (P ≥ 0.11) between these two treatments. In summary, diets containing the BEO used herein enhanced dry matter intake of growing-finishing feedlot cattle compared with a basal diet containing MON without impair feed efficiency. A synergism between BEO and AM was detected, further increasing cattle performance and carcass production compared to MON.

Livestock animals are often exposed to unavoidable stressful situations during their productive life that triggers stress-induced inflammatory responses, which are known to influence their nutrient requirements and feed intake. Decreased growth performance and immunocompetence of stressed livestock are often the main consequence of reduced feed intake. Because feed intake is usually reduced in animals experiencing stress conditions, concentrations of certain nutrients in the diets typically need to be increased to meet the requirements of the animals. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms that control feed intake in animals experiencing stress-induced inflammation is essential for increasing intake, milk or meat production, feed efficiency, and animal health. This review highlights the hormones regulating feed intake in ruminants and how stress-induced inflammation affect these hormones at local and systemic levels. The mechanism of feed intake regulation in ruminants is extremely complex and involves multiple controls. The liver is an important sensor of energy status in animals under homeostatic conditions, which transmits signals to brain feeding centers that modulate appetite. However, the physiologic consequences associated with different stressors will rearrange the hierarchy of mechanisms controlling feed intake compared to animals under homeostatic conditions, and other tissues (e.g., intestines), systems (e.g., endocrine and lymphatic) hormones (e.g., leptin and ghrelin) will directly affect intake regulation during stress and inflammatory conditions. It is suggested that the immune system can interact with the central nervous system to modulate feed intake. As example, stress events elicit numerous stressors that increase circulating proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and IL-8, and acute-phase proteins (APP), and the magnitude of these responses are negatively correlated with feed intake. A direct effect of these cytokines on rumen microbial fermentation and intestinal barrier function was also reported and might indirectly affect intake regulation in ruminants. This review describes the main hormones and proinflammatory cytokines involved in stress-induced inflammation and how they can directly or indirectly affect intake regulation in ruminants. Understanding the mechanisms controlling feed intake in ruminants will help producers to implement management and feed strategies to optimize productivity and profitability in stressed livestock species.

Poor-quality roughages are widely used as fiber sources in concentrate-based diets for ruminants. Because roughage quality is associated with the efficiency of energy use in forage-based diets, the objective of this study was to determine whether differing the roughage source in concentrate-based diets could change the energy requirements of growing lambs. Eighty-four 1/2 Dorper × 1/2 Santa Inês ram lambs (18.0 ± 3.3 kg BW) were individually penned and divided into 2 groups according to primary source of dietary roughage: low-quality roughage (LQR; sugarcane bagasse) or medium-quality roughage (MQR; coastcross hay). Diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous (2.6% N) and to meet 20% of physically effective NDF. After a 10-d ad libitum adaptation period, 7 lambs from each group were randomly selected and slaughtered (baseline). Twenty-one lambs in each diet group were fed ad libitum and slaughtered at 25, 35, or 45 kg BW. The remaining 28 lambs (14 from each diet group) were submitted to 1 of 2 levels of feed restriction: 70% or 50% of the ad libitum intake. Retentions of body fat, N, and energy were determined. Additionally, 6 ram lambs (44.3 ± 5.6 kg BW) were kept in metabolic cages and used in a 6 × 6 Latin square experiment designed to establish the ME content of the 2 diets at the 3 levels of DM intake. There was no effect of intake level on diet ME content, but it was greater in the diet with LQR than in the diet with MQR (3.18 vs. 2.94 Mcal/kg, respectively; P < 0.01). Lambs fed the diet with LQR had greater body fat (g/kg of empty BW) and energy concentrations (kcal/kg of empty BW) because of a larger visceral fat deposition (P < 0.05). Using a low-quality roughage as a primary source of forage in a concentrate-based diet for growing lambs did not change NE_m and the efficiency of ME use for maintenance, which averaged 71.6 kcal/kg^0.75 of shrunk BW and 0.63, respectively. On the other hand, the greater nonfibrous carbohydrate content of the diet with LQR resulted in a 17% better efficiency of ME use for gain (P < 0.01), which was associated with a greater partial efficiency of energy retention as fat (P < 0.01). This increased nutritional efficiency, however, should be viewed with caution because it is related to visceral fat deposition, a nonedible tissue. Copyright © 2014. American Society of Animal Science .

Four trials were conducted to evaluate the effects of flint corn processing and the replacement of corn with citrus pulp (CiP) in diets for Nellore feedlot cattle. In a 103-d finishing trial, 216 Nellore bulls (350 ± 24 kg initial BW) were used in a randomized complete block design with a 2 × 4 factorial arrangement of treatments. Factors included 2 processing methods, either ground corn (GC) or steam-flaked corn (FC), with CiP replacing each corn type at 4 levels (0, 25, 50, and 75% of DM). All diets contained 12% sugarcane bagasse and 88% concentrate (DM basis). Treatments were also evaluated in metabolism trials, in which 10 ruminally cannulated Nellore steers (389 ± 37 kg) were assigned to 2 independent but simultaneous 5 × 5 Latin squares, each using 1 method of corn processing (GC and FC). Interactions (P < 0.05) between corn processing and CiP inclusion level were observed for final BW, DMI, ADG, G:F, and HCW. With FC-based diets, added CiP linearly decreased final BW (P = 0.04), whereas with GC-based diets, added CiP quadratically increased final BW (P = 0.002). With FC-based diets, the inclusion of CiP linearly increased DMI (P = 0.03) and linearly decreased ADG (P = 0.03) and G:F (P = 0.001). Increasing CiP in GC-based diets quadratically increased DMI (P = 0.001), ADG (P = 0.005), and HCW (P = 0.003). In FC-based diets, CiP inclusion had no effect on HCW (P = 0.21). Dressing percent, LM area, and 12th-rib fat were not affected by diet (P ≥ 0.05). For steers fed GC diets, CiP inclusion in the diet quadratically decreased the molar proportion of isovalerate (P = 0.001) but linearly increased ruminal butyrate (P = 0.006). No differences (P ≥ 0.16) were observed for total VFA concentrations, acetate:propionate ratio, and ruminal NH₃–N as CiP replaced GC. For steers fed FC diets, the molar proportion of acetate linearly increased (P = 0.002) whereas the proportion of propionate was linearly decreased (P < 0.001), resulting in a linear increase (P = 0.001) in the acetate:propionate ratio. Replacing corn with CiP linearly reduced NEm (P = 0.001) and NEg (P < 0.001) of FC-based diets but did not affect (P = 0.15) NE values of CG-based diets. Steam flaking flint corn improved cattle performance in this trial more than has been reported for dent corn in the published literature.

Two experiments were designed to evaluate the impacts of supplementing lasalocid (LAS), narasin (NAR), or virginiamycin (VRM) on rumen fermentation parameters, apparent nutrient digestibility, and blood parameters (Exp. 1), as well as feed intake and performance (Exp. 2) of Nellore cattle consuming a forage-based diet. In Exp. 1, 32 rumen-fistulated Nellore steers (initial shrunk body weight [BW] = 355 ± 4.4 kg) were assigned to a randomized complete block design. Within block, animals were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: 1) forage-based diet without feed additives (CON), 2) CON diet plus 13 mg/kg of dry matter (DM) of NAR, 3) CON diet plus 20 mg/kg of DM of sodium LAS, or 4) CON diet plus 20 mg/kg of DM of VRM. No treatment effects were detected (P ≥ 0.32) for intake and apparent digestibility of nutrients. Steers fed NAR had the lowest (P ≤ 0.01) molar proportion of acetate on day 28, 56, and 112 vs. CON, LAS, and VRM steers, whereas acetate did not differ (P ≥ 0.25) between LAS, VRM, and CON steers from day 28 to 84. On day 112, steers fed LAS had a lower (P < 0.02) molar proportion of acetate vs. VRM and CON, whereas it did not differ between CON and VRM (P > 0.33). Steers receiving NAR had a greater (P ≤ 0.04) ruminal propionate vs. CON, LAS, and VRM, whereas LAS steers had greater (P < 0.04) propionate vs. CON and VRM steers on day 28 and 112, and it did not differ (P > 0.22) between CON and VRM. In Exp. 2, 160 Nellore bulls were blocked by initial shrunk BW (212 ± 3.1 kg) in a 140-d feedlot trial. Diets contained the same treatments used in Exp. 1. Bulls fed NAR had greater (P < 0.02) average daily gain (ADG) vs. CON and VRM, and similar (P = 0.17) ADG between NAR and LAS, whereas ADG did not differ (P > 0.28) between LAS, VRM, and CON bulls. A treatment effect was detected (P = 0.03) for dry matter intake, being greater in NAR vs. CON, LAS, and VRM bulls, and similar (P > 0.48) between CON, LAS, and VRM bulls. A tendency was detected (P = 0.09) for feed efficiency, which was greater (P < 0.02) in NAR bulls vs. CON and VRM, and similar (P = 0.36) between NAR and LAS bulls. From day 112 to 140, bulls receiving NAR were heavier (P < 0.03) vs. CON, LAS, and VRM bulls, but no differences were observed (P > 0.51) between CON, LAS, and VRM bulls. Collectively, ruminal fermentation profile and intake were impacted by NAR supplementation, which partially contributed to the enhanced performance of Nellore bulls receiving a forage-based diet. Feed additives are nutritional tools that benefit dietary digestibility and nutrient utilization, alter ruminal fermentation routes, and improve cattle growth and efficiency, thus increasing productivity and profitability in beef cattle systems. Nonetheless, most of the current research focuses on supplementing feed additives in high-concentrate diets. Leaving a significant gap in understanding the influence of feed additives in cattle consuming forage-based diets, especially molecules capable of altering the fermentation process and, consequently, beef cattle performance. Therefore, this experiment aimed to evaluate the impacts of supplementing narasin (NAR), lasalocid (LAS), or virginiamycin (VRM) on rumen fermentation parameters, apparent nutrient digestibility, feed intake, and performance of Bos indicus Nellore cattle consuming a forage-based diet. Including commercially available feed additives into forage-based diets did not impact nutrient intake and digestibility of nutrients. The inclusion of NAR affected ruminal fermentation parameters toward propionate production, positively contributing to animal performance. Ruminal fermentation characteristics and animal growth were not impacted by dietary LAS and VRM, which could be attributed to the dose used in the current experiment, despite the manufacturer’s recommendation. This research provides insights into NAR as an important feed additive for forage-based beef cattle diets.