Plant feed additives (PFA) such as essential oils, extracts, and by-products from plant processing can be included in poultry diets. A total of 39 peer-reviewed articles were selected from the literature published in the last 20 years (2000–2020) comparing PFA antioxidant effects with synthetic antioxidant vitamins (mainly vitamin E) in poultry nutrition. The PFA can be used as an effective nutritional strategy to face poultry’s oxidative stress with positive impact also on their productivity and efficiency. They can partially or completely replace antioxidant synthetic vitamins (the latter administered at doses between 150 and 500 mg/kg) in animal diets, sometimes affecting important physiological functions or expressing synergistic effect with the synthetic antioxidants. It is crucial to take into consideration the issues related to the absorption and the metabolism of these additives and their interaction with gut microbiota. However, some form- and dose-dependent negative effects on growth performances are observed.

In the last two decades, the interest in natural plant feed additives (PFA) as alternatives to synthetic vitamins in livestock nutrition has increased. After a systematic review, a total of 19 peer-reviewed papers published between 2000 and 2020 were retained to evaluate the antioxidant effects of PFA compared to synthetic antioxidant vitamins (mainly vitamin E; VitE) in livestock nutrition. These studies demonstrated that PFAs could be as efficient as VitE in counteracting oxidative stress in pigs, rabbits, and ruminants. However, PFAs only positively affected animals’ growth performance and feed efficiency in some monogastric studies. The PFA can affect antioxidant enzyme activity in a dose- and method of administration-dependent manner. The antioxidant capacity of both PFA and VitE were depressed in cows fed with diets rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids. Variability among studies could be related to species differences. Despite the interest of the feed industry sector in PFA, there are still very few studies evaluating their antioxidant effect in species other than poultry.

The interest for safe and natural foods of animal origin is currently increasing the use of plant feed additives (PFA) as antioxidants in animal nutrition. However, studies with livestock animals dealing with PFA as antioxidants are scarce. The aim of the present review was to evaluate the antioxidant impact of PFA compared with synthetic vitamins on animal food product yield and quality. For this purpose, peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2020 were collected. Most papers were carried out on ruminants (n = 13), but PFA were also tested in swine (n = 6) and rabbits (n = 2). The inclusion of PFA in the diets of pigs, rabbits, and ruminants improved the products’ quality (including organoleptic characteristics and fatty acids profile), oxidative stability, and shelf life, with some impacts also on their yields. The effects of PFA are diverse but often comparable to those of the synthetic antioxidant vitamin E, suggesting their potential as an alternative to this vitamin within the diet.

Scientific evidence demonstrates that plant feed additives (PFA) can be a viable alternative to synthetic antioxidant vitamins in poultry nutrition. PFA are represented by plants, essential oils, plant extracts, and by-products from herbal or crop processing. The use of PFA in the feed industry has increased in recent years as their biologically active compounds (polyphenols) have demonstrated antimicrobial and antioxidant effects in food-producing animals. However, few trials have directly compared the effects of PFA with synthetic vitamins. After a systematic literature review of studies comparing the effects of PFA and synthetic vitamins on poultry products in the last 20 years (2000–2020), a total of 44 peer-reviewed articles were included in the present work. A positive effect of PFA on poultry products’ oxidative stability during storage, organoleptic characteristics, and fatty acids profile has been observed without a specific impact on their performances. The effects of PFA are variable but often similar to those of vitamin E, suggesting the opportunity for a partial substitution of the latter in poultry diets.

A short-term study was conducted to compare the effect of using poplar wood chips (PWC) instead of wheat straw (WS) litter in dairy cows. A total of 38 lactating Holstein cows (204 ± 119 days in milk, 26.9 ± 6.5 kg of milk yield [MY]) were housed in a tiestall farm for a 10-d trial including 5 d of adaptation followed by 5 sampling days (from d 5 to 10). Cows were divided into 2 homogeneous groups: one group was bedded with WS, and the second with PWC. Both litter materials were provided in the amount of 7 kg/stall per d. Each group was composed of 3 subgroups of 6 or 7 cows; the subgroups were physically separated along the feeding line by wooden boards. During the sampling days, fecal composition, used litter composition, and bacterial count (Clostridium spp., Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus, and total bacterial count) were analyzed by subgroup twice a day. On d 1 and from d 5 to 10, udder hygiene score and cow cleanliness score were also evaluated individually twice a day. Meanwhile MY, milk hygiene (total bacterial count [TBC], coliform bacterial count [CBC], and spore-forming unit [SFU]) and quality were measured and analyzed from 9 animals per group. Moreover, individual animal behavior (body position and behavioral traits) and subgroup dry matter intake were measured on d 9 and 10. Fecal dry matter did not differ between groups, PWC had the lowest used litter moisture and N content favoring the highest clean cow frequency, but also gave rise to the greatest used litter microbial contamination. The MY, milk quality, TBC, SFU, and CBC were similar. The lying behavior frequency was similar between groups. However, the PWC group showed the lowest sleeping frequency, the highest frequency of other behaviors (including discomfort signs), and the lowest dry matter intake. However, despite this apparent reduction in cow comfort, no biologically important differences were observed in this short-term study between cows on PWC and WS in milk production or hygiene.