Rodrigo Marques

Dr. Rodrigo Marques

Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State Universitydisabled, Bozeman, MT, USA

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

8Years (2019-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
30 September 2021 in Animals
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RMRodrigo Marques
Rodrigo Marques
RCReinaldo Cooke
Reinaldo Cooke
Ionophores have been widely used in the beef and dairy industry for decades to improve feed efficiency and performance by altering ruminal fermentation dynamics, increasing the level of propionate. Ionophores can also reduce ruminal proteolysis and ammonia synthesis, thus increasing the influx of protein into the small intestine in cattle, leading to improvements in performance and efficiency responses. Ionophores indirectly impact ruminal methanogenesis by decreasing the substrate used to produce methane. Despite the consistent benefits of using ionophores in cattle nutrition, their utilization is under public scrutiny due to concerns related to microbial adaptation. However, there is inconsistent evidence supporting these concerns, whereas ionophores are still an important dietary tool to enhance productivity and profitability in beef production systems.

15 November 2022 in Frontiers in Animal Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
VGVinícius Gouvêa
Vinícius Gouvêa
RCReinaldo Cooke
Reinaldo Cooke
RMRodrigo Marques
Rodrigo Marques
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.

1 April 2021 in Journal of Animal Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ALArnaldo Cintra Limede
Arnaldo Cintra Limede
RMRodrigo Marques
Rodrigo Marques
DPDaniel Polizel
Daniel Polizel
BCBruno Ieda Cappellozza
Bruno Ieda Cappellozza
AMAlexandre Arantes Miszura
Alexandre Arantes Miszura
APAlexandre Vaz Pires
Alexandre Vaz Pires
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the inclusion of narasin, salinomycin, or flavomycin for 140 d on ruminal fermentation parameters, apparent nutrient digestibility, and performance of Nellore cattle offered a forage-based diet. In experiment 1, 32 rumen-cannulated Bos indicus Nellore steers [initial body weight (BW) = 220 ± 12.6 kg] were assigned to individual pens in a randomized complete block design according to their initial shrunk BW. Within block, animals were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: (1) forage-based diet without feed additives (CON; n = 8), (2) CON diet plus 13 ppm of narasin (NAR; n = 8), (3) CON diet plus 20 ppm of salinomycin (SAL; n = 8), or (4) CON diet plus 3 ppm of flavomycin (FLA; n = 8). The experimental period lasted 140 d and was divided into 5 periods of 28 d each. The inclusion of feed additives did not impact (P ≥ 0.17) dry matter intake (DMI), nutrient intake, and apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients. Nonetheless, steers fed NAR had lower (P < 0.01) molar proportion of acetate compared with CON, SAL, and FLA steers, whereas ruminal acetate tended to be greater (P < 0.09) for SAL vs. CON and FLA, but did not differ (P = 0.68) between CON vs. FLA steers. Ruminal propionate was the highest (P < 0.01) for steers fed NAR and did not differ (P > 0.20) between CON, SAL, and FLA. Consequently, NAR steers had the lowest (P < 0.01) Ac:Pr ratio, whereas Ac:Pr did not differ (P > 0.18) among CON, SAL, and FLA. Total volatile fatty acids were greater (P < 0.04) for NAR and CON vs. SAL and FLA, but did not differ (P > 0.67) among NAR vs. CON and SAL vs. FLA. In experiment 2, 164 Nellore bulls (initial shrunk BW = 299 ± 2.5 kg) were assigned to feedlot pens for 140 d in a randomized complete block design. Within block (n = 10), animals were randomly assigned to the same treatments used in experiment 1. Average daily gain was greater (P < 0.01) in NAR vs. CON, SAL, and FLA bulls, and did not differ (P > 0.12) between CON, SAL, and FLA bulls. Bulls fed NAR had greater (P < 0.02) DMI (as kg/d or % BW) and final shrunk BW compared with CON, SAL, and FLA bulls, whereas DMI and final shrunk BW did not differ (P > 0.26) between CON, SAL, and FLA bulls. Feed efficiency, however, was not impacted (P = 0.51) by any feed additives used herein. Collectively, narasin was the only feed additive that benefited performance and ruminal fermentation of Nellore animals fed a forage-based diet.

18 April 2021 in Animals
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KHKelsey Harvey
Kelsey Harvey
RCReinaldo Cooke
Reinaldo Cooke
RMRodrigo Marques
Rodrigo Marques
Nutritional management during gestation is critical to optimize the efficiency and profitability of beef production systems. Given the essentiality of trace minerals to fetal developmental processes, their supplementation represents one approach to optimize offspring productivity. Our research group investigated the impacts of supplementing gestating beef cows with organic-complexed (AAC) or inorganic sources (INR) of Co, Cu, Mn, or Zn on productive and health responses of the progeny. Calves born to AAC supplemented cows had reduced incidence of bovine respiratory disease and were >20 kg heavier from weaning until slaughter compared to unsupplemented cohorts. Complementing these findings, heifer progeny born to AAC supplemented cows had accelerated puberty attainment. Collectively, research demonstrates supplementing trace minerals to gestating beef cows may be a strategy to enhance offspring productivity in beef production systems.

4 January 2025 in Journal of Animal Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
BCBruno Ieda Cappellozza
Bruno Ieda Cappellozza
RCReinaldo Cooke
Reinaldo Cooke
RARafael C Amaral
Rafael C Amaral
ABAlex Bach
Alex Bach
TETerry E Engle
Terry E Engle
JVJoão M B Vendramini
João M B Vendramini
The livestock industry is in search of sustainable technologies that enhance the profitability and sustainability of food animal production. Among these technologies, microbial solutions include living bacteria that may support soil, plant, and animal health. Bacterial inoculants have been the most used additives to modulate whole-plant corn silage fermentation, including homo- and heterofermentative bacteria. Bacterial inoculants can improve fermentation characteristics of grass silage, whereas the wide variation in chemical composition and management practices across cool- and warm-season grasses makes the outcome of inoculation less predictable. Tailored recommendations for bacterial inoculant species and strains, based on species and management practices, are necessary to increase the predictability of silage inoculation, including whole-plant corn and grass silage. Microbial solutions are also used as feed additives for beef and dairy cattle, including Bacillus-based direct-fed microbials (DFM). Recent advancements in Bacillus-based DFM supplementation have shown promise for enhancing cow-calf productivity through improved gut health, immune function, and nutrient metabolism. Incorporating Bacillus-based DFM into stocker and feedlot receiving programs can improve feed intake and digestibility, health, and productivity of high-risk cattle. Bacillus-based DFM have also been used in feedlot diets to address public concerns with antimicrobial resistance but also to improve cattle performance and reduce the incidence of diseases. Multispecies bacterial-based DFM are promising alternatives to counteract the potentially adverse effects of Salmonella, as these DFM supported the integrity of the intestinal epithelial cells under in vitro settings. In dairy cattle, most DFM-related research in mature cows has targeted improvements in rumen fermentation and enterocyte health. In general, improvements in milk production due to supplementation of bacteria-based DFM seem to be more consistent than those obtained with yeast-based DFM. Collectively, microbial solutions have the potential to optimize silage quality, enhance feed intake and digestibility by ruminants, and support cattle health and performance while fostering sustainable practices in beef and dairy production systems.

1 January 2023 in Journal of Animal Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AMAlexandre Arantes Miszura
Alexandre Arantes Miszura
RMRodrigo Marques
Rodrigo Marques
DPDaniel Polizel
Daniel Polizel
BCBruno Ieda Cappellozza
Bruno Ieda Cappellozza
VCVinicius Alves Cruz
Vinicius Alves Cruz
APAlexandre Vaz Pires
Alexandre Vaz Pires
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.