Next Article in Journal
Enrichment of Ewe’s Milk with Dietary n-3 Fatty Acids from Palm, Linseed and Algae Oils in Isoenergetic Rations
Previous Article in Journal
The Composition of the Carcass, Physicochemical Properties, Texture and Microstructure of the Meat of D11 Dworka and P9 Pekin Ducks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/ani12131715
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Comparing Blend of Essential Oils Plus 25-Hydroxy-Vit-D3 Versus Monensin Plus Virginiamycin Combination in Finishing Feedlot Cattle: Growth Performance, Dietary Energetics, and Carcass Traits

by
Alfredo Estrada-Angulo
1,
Daniel A. Mendoza-Cortez
1,
Jorge L. Ramos-Méndez
1,
Yesica J. Arteaga-Wences
1,
Jesús D. Urías-Estrada
1,
Beatriz I. Castro-Pérez
1,
Francisco G. Ríos-Rincón
1,
Miguel A. Rodríguez-Gaxiola
1,
Alberto Barreras
2,
Richard A. Zinn
3 and
Alejandro Plascencia
1,*
1
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa, Culiacan 80260, Sinaloa, Mexico
2
Veterinary Science Research Institute, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexicali 21100, Baja California, Mexico
3
Animal Science Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(13), 1715; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131715
Submission received: 1 June 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 1 July 2022 / Published: 2 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Nutrition)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

A primary objective in livestock production is the limitation of use of conventional antibiotics as feed additives for promoting growth. Due to their antimicrobial characteristics, essential oils are “generally recognized as safe” alternatives to conventional antibiotics. In this study, dietary supplementation of finishing cattle with essential oils combined with vitamin D3 improved dietary energy utilization comparable to that of the combination of ionophore monensin and antibiotic virginiamycin. Furthermore, supplementation with essential oils combined with vitamin D3 during the finishing phase may improve carcass Longissimus muscle area and carcass yield.

Abstract

Ninety crossbreed bulls (349.5 ± 8.25 kg initial weight) were used in an 87day trial to compare the effects of a blend of essential oils plus 25-hydroxy-Vit-D3 (EO + HyD) versus the combination of monensin with virginiamycin (MON + VM) on feedlot growth performance and carcass characteristics. Dietary treatments (nine replicates/treatment) were supplemented with 40 mg/kg diet dry matter of MON + VM (equal parts) or with 120.12 mg/kg diet dry matter of a combination of standardized mixture of essential oils (120 mg) plus 0.12 mg of 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3 (EO + HyD). There were no treatment effects on dry matter intake (DMI, p = 0.63). However, the coefficient of variation in day-to-day DMI was greater for EO + HyD than for MON + VM (11.4% vs. 3.88%, p = 0.04). There were no treatment effects (p ≥ 0.17) on daily weight gain, gain-to-feed ratio, and estimated dietary net energy. Cattle supplemented with EO + HyD had greater Longissimus muscle area (7.9%, p < 0.01) and estimated retail yield (1.6%, p = 0.03), and tended to have heavier (1.7%, p = 0.10) carcass weight. Differences among treatments in dressing percentage, fat thickness, kidney–pelvic–heart fat, and marbling score were not appreciable (p > 0.10). It is concluded that growth performance response and dietary energetic are similar for finishing cattle supplemented with EO + HyD vs. MON + VM. However, compared with MON + VM, supplementation with EO + HyD during the finishing phase may improve carcass Longissimus area and carcass yield.

1. Introduction

Virginiamycin (VM), a peptolide antibiotic, has been used as feed additive in feedlot cattle to decrease the incidence of acidosis and liver abscess, and to promote growth [1,2,3]. The effect of VM on Gram-positive bacteria is similar to that of ionophore monenesin (MON), although their modes of action differ (virginiamycin inhibits protein synthesis by binding to the 23S ribosomal subunit blocking the translation process, with no effect on transcription, while the ionophore monensin the modifies movement of ions across the membranes of rumen microbes) [4]. Accordingly, numerous studies [5,6,7,8] have demonstrated an additive effect when the two antibiotics are fed in combination. Concern over routine use of supplemental antibiotics for growth enhancement has led to the search nonantibiotic alternatives that may likewise enhance growth performance [9]. Supplemental essential oils (EOs; such as piperine, limonene, eugenol, and thymol) also manifest antimicrobial properties by modifying ruminal fermentation patterns (greater molar ratio of ruminal propionate to acetate), retarding the rate of ruminal starch fermentation, and reducing ruminal degradation of feed protein [10,11]. In this regard, supplementation of feedlot finishing diets with a standardized mixture of essential oils compounds (thymol, eugenol, vanillin, and limonene) at dosages of 90 to 150 mg/kg diet dry matter (DM) resulted in enhancements in gain efficiency and efficiency of energy utilization comparable to those of MON or VM supplementation separately [12,13]. In recent reports, 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3 (HyD) supplemented at 0.10 mg/kg of diet tended to increase average daily gain (ADG) [14], carcass weight [15], and dressing percentage [16]. Researchers attributed these results to the effects of HyD on protein accretion [17]. Due to the chemical nature and the mechanism of action of EO and HyD, their combination could be complementary. We hypothesized that supplementation of feedlot cattle finishing diets with the combination of EO plus HyD may result in enhancements in growth performance and energetic efficiency comparable to the combination of MON with VM.

2. Materials and Methods

The trial was conducted at the feedlot research facilities located in Guasave, Sinaloa, México (25°33′ N and 108°25′ W). The site is about 50 m above sea level and has a dry climate. During the course of the experiment, ambient air temperature averaged 22.6 °C (minimum and maximum of 16.3 and 28.0 °C, respectively), and relative humidity averaged 53.9% (minimum and maximum of 18.4% and 88.0%, respectively). All animal management procedures were conducted within the guidelines of locally approved techniques for animal use and care [18]. The experimental protocol was approved by the Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa Animal Use and Care Committee (Protocol #21092021).

2.1. Animal Processing, Diets, Treatments, Housing, and Feeding

Ninety intact male (349.5 ± 8.25 kg initial shrunk weight) crossbreed cattle (approximately 50% Zebu breeding with the remainder represented by continental and British breeds in various proportions) were used to evaluate the treatments effects on growth performance, dietary energetic, and carcass characteristics. On arrival into the feedlot (approximately 3 months before initiation of the experiment), cattle were vaccinated for bovine rhinotracheitis and parainfluenza 3 (TSV-27, Pfizer Animal Health, México City, Mexico), clostridials (Fortress 7, Pfizer Animal Health, Mexico City, Mexico), and Pasteurella haemolytica (One Shot, Pfizer Animal Health, México City, Mexico), and treated against parasites (CYDECTIN® NF, Pfizer Animal Health, México; Trodax, Merial, México). Cattle were injected with 500,000 IU of vitamin A, 75,000 IU of vitamin D3, and 50 IU of vitamin E (Synt-ADE, Zoetis) and were implanted with 40 mg of trenbolone acetate and 8 mg of estradiol 17β (Revalor G, MSD Salud Animal Mexico, Santiago Tianguistenco, México). Cattle were fed transition diets for 70 days prior to receiving the finishing diet. Cattle were adapted to the basal finishing diet (minus treatment additives) for 2 weeks prior to initiation of the study. The ingredient composition of the basal diet and its chemical composition according to NASEM [19] are shown in Table 1. Upon initiation of the study, cattle were implanted with 140 mg of trenbolone acetate and 20 mg of estradiol 17β (Revalor, MSD Salud Animal Mexico, Santiago Tianguistenco, México) and individually weighed (feed and water were not withdrawn before weighing). Cattle were blocked by weight and randomly allocated within blocks to two treatments (nine pens/treatment, five bulls/pen). Pens were 5.00 × 12.00 m with 19 m2 of shade and were equipped with automatic waterers and fence-line feed bunks (2.37 m in length). Experiments lasted 87 days. Dietary treatments consisted of a steam-flaked corn-based finishing diet (Table 1) supplemented (dry matter basis, DM) with (1) MON + VM, consisting of 20 mg monensin/kg diet (MON; Rumensin, Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA) plus 20 mg virginiamycin/kg diet (VM; V-max 50, Phibro Animal Health, Ridgefield Park, NJ, USA) or (2) EO + HyD, consisting of a 120 mg of a blend of essential oils/kg diet (EO; CRINA, DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland) plus 0.12 mg of 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3/kg diet DM (Hy-D; DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland). Diets were prepared at weekly intervals. Daily feed allotments to each pen were adjusted to allow minimal (<5%) feed refusals. Amounts of feed offered and of feed refused were weighed daily. Cattle were provided fresh feed twice daily at 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. in a 40:60 proportion (as fed basis). Feed bunks were visually assessed between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. each morning, refusals were collected and weighed, and feed intake was determined. Adjustments to daily feed delivery were provided at the afternoon feeding. Cattle were fasted (drinking water was not withdrawn) for approximately 16 h before recording the final live weight (LW).

2.2. Laboratory Analyses

Feed and refusal samples were collected daily for dry matter analysis (oven drying at 105 °C until no further weight loss occurred; method 930.15 [20].

2.3. Calculations

Estimations of expected dry matter intake (DMI) and dietary net energy value were performed on the basis of measures of initial shrunk body weight (SBW), assuming that SBW is 96% of full weight [21], and fasted (16 h) final weight. Average daily gain (ADG) was computed by subtracting the initial SBW from the final fasted weight and dividing the result by the number of days on feed (87 days). Gain efficiency was computed by dividing ADG by the daily DMI. The estimation of expected DMI was performed on the basis of the observed ADG and SBW according to the following equation: expected DMI, kg/day = (EM/NEm) + (EG/NEg), where EM (energy required for maintenance, Mcal/day) = 0.077W0.75, EG (energy required for gain, Mcal/day) = ADG1.097 × 0.0557W0.75 [22], and divisors NEm (diet energy for maintenance) and gain NEg (diet energy for gain) = 2.14 and 1.46 Mcal/kg (derived from tabular values based on the ingredient composition of the experimental diet [19]). Estimation of dietary NEm was performed by means of the following quadratic formula:
x = − b ± b 2 − 4 a c 2 c ,
where x = NEm, Mcal/kg, a = −0.41EM, b = 0.877EM + 0.41DMI + EG, and c = −0.877 DMI [23]. The observed dietary NEg was derived from observed dietary NEm using the equation NEg = 0.877NEm − 0.41 [24].

2.4. Carcass Evaluation

All steers were harvested on the same day at a government-certified (TIF) commercial abattoir. Hot carcass weights (HCWs) were obtained from all steers at the time of harvest. After carcasses were chilled at −2 °C to 1 °C for 48 h, the following measurements were obtained: (1) Longissimus muscle area (LM), taken by direct grid reading at the 12th rib; (2) subcutaneous fat over the LM muscle at the 12th rib taken at a location three-quarters of the lateral length from the chin bone end; (3) kidney, pelvic, and heart fat (KPH) as a percentage of carcass weight; (4) marbling score [25]. Estimated retail yield of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts from the round, loin, rib, and chuck (% of HCW) was estimated as follows: retail yield = 52.56 − 1.95 × subcutaneous fat − 1.06 × KPH + 0.106 × LM area − 0.018 × HCW [25].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Growth performance data (gain, gain efficiency, and dietary energetics) were analyzed as a randomized complete block design, with pen as the experimental unit. Carcass data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure [26], with treatment and pen as fixed effects and interaction treatment × pen and individual carcasses within pen by treatment subclasses as random effects. For comparing DM intake pattern, equality of mean effects and homogeneity between variances (CV1 vs. CV2) were tested using Brown and Forsythe’s variation of Levene’s test. In all cases, the least squares mean and standard error are reported; contrasts were considered significant when p ≤ 0.05, and tendencies were identified when 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.

3. Results

There was no morbidity or mortality during the course of the study. On the basis of measures of feed intake (Table 2), average daily intake of the combination of MON + VM was 326 mg/day (equivalent to 0.787 mg/kg LW). Average daily intake of EO was 948 mg/day (2.3 mg/kg LW), and intake of HyD averaged 0.95 mg/day (0.0023 mg/kg LW).
Treatment effects on growth performance and dietary energetics are shown in Table 2. There was no treatment effect on dry matter intake (DMI, p = 0.64) averaging 7.91 ± 0.617 kg/day. However, the coefficient variation in day-to-day DMI was greater (294%, p < 0.04) for EO + HyD than for MON + VM. There were no treatment effects on daily gain (p = 0.67), gain-to-feed ratio (p = 0.17), and estimated dietary net energy values (p = 0.86). Estimated dietary net energy based on growth performance averaged 5.4% greater than expected according to tabular values [19] and diet formulation (Table 1).
Treatment effects on carcass characteristics are shown in Table 3. Cattle supplemented with EO + HyD had greater LM area (7.9%, p < 0.01) and estimated retail yield (1.6%, p = 0.03), and they tended to have heavier (1.7%, p = 0.10) carcass weight. Differences among treatments in dressing percentage, fat thickness, KPH, and marbling score were not significant (p > 0.10).

4. Discussion

The daily dose of MON plus VM (0.787 mg/kg LW) was within the suggested dosage range for increased average daily gain and gain-to-feed ratio when both additives are fed in combination [8,27]. Optimal dosage of EO + HyD has not been established for feedlot cattle. However, the daily dosages of EO (3 mg/kg LW) and HyD (0.003 mg/kg LW) were within the range of levels previously shown to enhance growth performance and/or carcass characteristics when offered separately in high-energy finishing diets [15,28].
One of the reasons for ionophore supplementation of high-energy finishing diets is a reduction in the variation of daily feed intake [29,30], as day-to-day variation in feed intake is thought to be a contributing factor to subclinical acidosis [31,32]. Consistent with the present study, Barreras et al. [33] observed a threefold reduction in DMI variation for cattle fed MON vs. non-supplemented diets. Variations in DMI of up to 15% did not appreciably affect ADG and gain efficiency [34]. In the same manner, Barajas et al. [35] observed that day-to-day DMI fluctuations up to 20% did not affect gain efficiency. Accordingly, it may be expected that the intake variation of 11.4% observed for the EO + HyD combination was not sufficient to appreciably affect growth performance.
When supplemented alone, MON decreases DM intake by an average of 3.1% [36], whereas VM supplementation alone does not reduce DMI [37]. There are few reports evaluating the effects of MON + VM combination on cattle growth performance. However, consistently with the present study, most reports [5,6,38] found that the combination did not affect daily DMI, although Benatti et al. [27] observed decreased DMI in feedlot cattle supplemented with MON + VM.
As mentioned previously, there are no previously reported studies evaluating the effects of EO + HyD combination on feedlot cattle growth performance. Essential oils are, by nature, volatile and aromatic and, as such, are claimed to enhance diet acceptability, promoting voluntary feed intake [39]. However, when supplemented separately, the blend of EO used in the present study did not increase the feed intake of feedlot cattle [40,41,42] or feedlot lambs [13,43]. Similarly, HyD supplementation alone did not increase DMI of feedlot cattle [15,16].
Except for Rigueiro et al. [37], the majority of studies reported enhancements in daily gain and gain efficiency for the combination of MON + VM than when supplemented separately [3]. The positive effects of MON and VM on energetic efficiency in ruminants have been extensively studied. The main effects include reductions in acetate-to-propionate ratio and methane production, decreased ruminal protein degradation, increased N retention, and improved intestinal health, promoting greater nutrient absorption [44,45,46]. Essential oils, likewise, have antimicrobial properties comparable to those of ionophores and VM. Additionally, they are observed to enhance immune response and reduce cellular oxidative stress [11,47,48]. Vitamin D3 at high levels of supplementation (i.e., ≥1 mg/animal/day) is active in immune and endocrine functions [49] and in mechanisms that promote protein accretion [17]. All of these enhancements associated with supplemental MON, VM, EO, and HyD help to facilitate feedlot cattle energetic efficiency.
Estimation of dietary net energy based on measures of growth performance (observed dietary NE) permits the comparison with expected based on diet composition and tabular feed standards [19]. A ratio of observed-to-expected dietary NE ratio of 1.00 indicates that growth performance (daily gain) is consistent with theoretical dietary NE values (based on feed standard tables [19], Table 1) and observed DMI. A ratio greater than 1.00 is indicative of greater dietary energy utilization efficiency, while an observed-to-expected ratio less than 1.00 indicates less efficient dietary energy utilization. This study did not include a negative control (with no treatment additives); thus, direct net additive responses are uncertain. However, on the basis of observed-to-expected dietary net energy, efficiency of energy utilization for cattle fed MON + VM was 5.6% greater than expected, while energetic efficiency of cattle receiving the EO + HyD combination was 5.2% greater than expected. The observed increase in the ratio of observed-to-expected dietary net energy for MON + VM combination is in close agreement with the increase of 5.9% reported by Nuñez et al. [50] for the combination of VM plus the ionophore salinomycin. According to meta-analyses, Duffield et al. [36] observed that supplemental MON alone increase efficiency by an average of 3.5%. The average increase in energetic efficiency due to supplemental VM alone averaged 4.1% [1,3,45,51,52]. Therefore, the increase in efficiency above the expected values when both additives are supplemented separately could confirm the complementary effect of the combination observed both in this experiment and in previous reports [6,27,53]. On the other hand, using performance data from several reports in feedlot cattle [12,14,40,41,54,55], the average increase of estimated dietary net energy due to supplemental EO alone was 3.6%. Supplemental HyD, alone, has not been found to affect efficiency of energy utilization [15,56].
When supplemented alone, the effects of EO on carcass characteristics was not appreciable in feedlot cattle [12,57] and finishing lambs [13,43]. The NASEM [19] does not report vitamin D equivalents for a majority of dietary ingredients. Consequently, it may be considered that supplemental HyD represents the total quantity of vitamin D ingested. Supplementation with HyD at 0.12 mg vitamin D/kg diet DM (equivalent to 4800 IU vitamin D3/kg diet DM) is equivalent to 2.2-fold the suggested allowance [58]. High-level short-term (i.e., 10 days) supplementation with vitamin D3 prior to slaughter has been suggested as a means for increasing calcium uptake, thereby enhancing meat tenderness [59]. However, effects on meat tenderness were not appreciable [60] when D3 was supplemented at high levels for longer durations (i.e., 67 days). More recently [49,61], the importance of additional vitamin D3 supplementation for livestock health and productivity was highlighted. However, the benefits of additional vitamin D3 supplementation to feedlot cattle on growth performance and carcass characteristics are inconsistent. Dosages of up to 125 mg/animal/day for 8 days previous to slaughter had negative effects on DMI, ADG, and feed efficiency [62]. However, daily dosage of 12 mg/day or lower did not adversely affect performance or carcass characteristics [62,63]. Long-term vitamin D3 supplementation (160 days) at moderate levels (from 0.04 to 0.05 mg/day) was not beneficial for enhancement of cattle growth performance or carcass characteristics [64,65]. In contrast, daily supplementation at higher levels (~1 mg/animal) increased carcass dressing percentage (+0.54 percentage points) [16] and carcass weight (+1.49%) [15] in Nellore cattle during a finishing period of at least 90 days. These effects can be partially explained by the potentiating effects of higher-level vitamin D3 supplementation on protein accretion [17]. The basis for the increase in LM area in cattle fed EO + HyD is not clear. In earlier studies, supplemental EO alone [28,66] or supplemental HyD alone did not affected LM area [14,15,16]. More research related to this topic is necessary to corroborate the results obtained herein.

5. Conclusions

It is concluded that growth performance responses and dietary energetics are similar for finishing cattle supplemented with EO + HyD vs. MON + VM. However, compared with MON + VM, supplementation with EO + HyD during the finishing phase may improve carcass LM area and carcass yield.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, visualization, and writing—review and editing, A.P. and A.E.-A.; writing—review and editing final version of the manuscript, R.A.Z.; data curation and statistical analyses, A.B. and M.A.R.-G.; investigation, D.A.M.-C., J.L.R.-M., Y.J.A.-W., J.D.U.-E., B.I.C.-P. and F.G.R.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially supported by DSM Nutritional Products, México.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The experimental protocol was approved by the Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa Animal Use and Care Committee (Protocol #21092021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is expressed to CONACYT, Mexico, for fellowship support (CVU 927615) to Daniel A. Mendoza-Cortéz. The authors thank the support received by the commercial feedlot ‘Ganadera Rubios’ during the development of the experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Montano, M.F.; Manriquez, O.M.; Salinas-Chavira, J.; Torrentera, N.; Zinn, R.A. Effects of monensin and virginiamycin supplementation in finishing diets with distiller dried grains plus solubles on growth performance and digestive function of steers. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2015, 43, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Salinas-Chavira, J.; Barreras, A.; Plascencia, A.; Montano, M.F.; Navarrete, J.D.; Torrentera, N.; Zinn, R.A. Influence of protein nutrition and virginiamycin supplementation on feedlot growth-performance and digestive function of calf-fed Holstein steer. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 4276–4286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tedeschi, L.O.; Gorocica-Buenfil, M.A. An assessment of the effectiveness of virginiamycin on liver abscess incidence and growth performance in feedlot cattle: A comprehensive statistical analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 2474–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lemos, B.J.M.; Castro, F.G.F.; Santos, L.S.; Mendoça, B.P.C.; Couto, V.R.M.; Fernandes, J.J.R. Monensin, virginiamycin, and flavomycin in a no-roughage finishing diet fed to zebu cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 4307–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Erasmus, L.J.; Muya, C.; Erasmus, S.; Coertze, R.F.; Catton, D.G. Effect of virginiamycin and monensin supplementation on performance of multiparous Holstein cows. Livest. Sci. 2008, 119, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. da Fonseca, M.P.; Borges, A.L.C.C.; e Silva, R.R.; Lage, H.F.; Ferreira, A.L.; Lopes, F.C.F.; Pancoti, C.G.; Rodrigues, J.A.S. Intake, apparent digestibility, and methane emission in bulls receiving a feed supplement of monensin, virginiamycin, or a combination. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 1041–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gorocica, M.A.; Tedeschi, L.O. Virginiamycin increases performance and carcass weight of feedlot cattle under Mexican conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95 (Suppl. 4), 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hecker, J.C.; Neumann, M.; Ueno, R.K.; Falbo, M.K.; Galbeiro, S.; de Souza, A.M.; Venancio, B.J.; Santos, L.C.; Askel, E.J. Effect of monensin sodium associative to virginiamycin and/or essential oils on the performance of feedlot finished steers. Semin. Ciências Agrárias Londrina 2018, 39, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lillehoj, H.; Liu, Y.; Calsamiglia, S.; Fernandez-Miyakawa, M.E.; Chi, F.; Cravens, R.L.; Oh, S.; Gay, C.G. Phytochemicals as antibiotic alternatives to promote growth and enhance host health. Vet. Res. 2018, 49, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. McIntosh, F.M.; Williams, P.; Losa, R.; Wallace, R.J.; Beever, D.A.; Newbold, C.J. Effects of essential oils on ruminal microorganisms and their protein metabolism. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5011–5014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Koyunco, M.; Canbolat, O. Effect of carvacrol on intake, rumen fermentation, growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing lambs. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2010, 38, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meschiatti, M.A.P.; Gouvea, V.N.; Pellerini, L.A.; Batalha, C.D.A.; Bielhl, M.V.; Acedo, T.S.; Dórea, J.R.R.; Tamasia, L.F.M.; Owens, F.N.; Santos, F.A.P. Feeding the combination of essential oils and exogenous amylase increases performance and carcass production of finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 456–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Arteaga-Wences, Y.J.; Estrada-Angulo, A.; Gerardo-Ríos, F.G.; Castro-Pérez, D.A.; Mendoza-Cortez, D.A.; Manriquez-Núñez, O.M.; Barreras, A.; Corona-Gochi, L.; Zinn, R.A. The effects of feeding a standardized mixture of essential oils vs. monensin on growth performance, dietary energy and carcass characteristics of lambs fed a high-energy finishing diet. Small Rumin. Res. 2021, 205, 106557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gouvêa, V.N.; Meschiatti, M.A.; Moraes, J.M.M.; Batalha, C.D.A.; Dórea, J.R.R.; Acedo, T.S.; Tamassia, L.F.M.; Owens, F.N.; Santos, F.A.P. Effects of alternative feed additives and flint maize grain particle size on growth performance, carcass traits and nutrient digestibility of finishing beef cattle. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 157, 456–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carvalho, V.V.; Perdigão, A. Supplementation of 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3 and increased vitamin E as a strategy to increase carcass weight of feedlot beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97 (Suppl. 3), 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Acedo, T.S.; Gouvêa, V.N.; Vasconcellos, G.M.; Arrigoni, M.; Martins, C.L.; Millen, D.D.; Muller, L.R.; Melo, G.F.; Rizzieri, R.A.; Costa, C.F.; et al. Effect of 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3 on feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96 (Suppl. 3), 447–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Martins, T.E.; Acedo, T.S.; Gouvêa, V.N.; Vasconcellos, G.M.; Arrigoni, M.; Martins, C.L.; Millen, D.D.; Pai, M.D.; Perdigão, A.; Melo, G.F.; et al. Effects of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol supplementation on gene expression of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98 (Suppl. 4), 302–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. NOM. Normas Oficiales Mexicanas. Diario Oficial de la Federación. (NOM-051-ZOO-1995, NOM-033-ZOO-1995) Trato Humanitario de Animales de Producción, de Compañía y Animales Silvestres Durante el Proceso de Crianza, Desarrollo de Experimentos, Movilización y Sacrificio. 1995. Available online: http://dof.gob.mx/ (accessed on 9 September 2020).
  19. National Academy of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle, 8th ed.; National Academy Science of Sciences Engineering Medicine (NASEM): Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Method of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC): Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  21. National Academy of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle, 7th ed.; National Academy Science of Sciences Engineering Medicine (NASEM): Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  22. National Academy of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle, 6th ed.; National Academy Science of Sciences Engineering Medicine (NASEM): Washington, DC, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zinn, R.A.; Shen, Y. An evaluation of ruminally degradable intake protein and metabolizable amino acid requirements of feedlot calves. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 1280–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zinn, R.A.; Barreras, A.; Owens, F.N.; Plascencia, A. Performance by feedlot steers and heifers: ADG, mature weight, DMI and dietary energetics. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 2680–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. USDA. United States Standards for Grading of Carcass Beef; Agric. Marketing Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  26. Statistical Analytical System. SAS Proprietary Software Release 9.3; SAS Institute Inc. (SAS): Cary, NC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  27. Benatti, J.M.; Neto, J.A.; Oliveira, L.M.; Resende, F.D.; Siqueira, G.R. Effect of increasing monensin sodium levels in diets with virginiamycin on the finishing of Nellore cattle. Anim. Sci. J. 2017, 88, 1709–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Toseti, L.B.; Goulart, R.S.; Gouvêa, V.N.; Acedo, T.S.; Guillerme, S.F.M.; Pires, A.V.; Leme, P.R.; Netto, A.S.; Silva, S.L. Effects of a blend essential oils and exogenous α-amylase in diets containing different roughage sources for finishing beef cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 269, 114643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gibb, D.J.; Moustafa, S.M.S.; Wiedmeier, R.D.; McCallister, T.A. Effect of salinomycin or monensin on performance and feeding behavior of cattle fed wheat- or barley-based diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 81, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Texeira, D.A.A.; Capelloza, B.I.; Fernandes, J.R.; Nascimento, K.S.; Bonfim, L.E.L.M.; Lopes, C.N.; Ehrhardt, J.A.C.; Peres, J.R.; Harris, S.A.; Simas, J.M.C.; et al. Effects of monensin source on in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics and performance of Bos indicus beef bulls offered a high-concentrate diet. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Stock, R.; Klopfenstein, T.; Shain, D. Feed intake variation. In Symposium; Feed Intake by Feedlot Cattle; Oklahoma Agriculture Experimental Station: Stillwater, OK, USA, 1995; Volume P-942, pp. 56–59. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pritchard, R.H.; Burns, K. Controlling variation in feed intake through bunk management. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81 (Suppl. 2), E133–E138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barreras, A.; Castro-Pérez, B.I.; López-Soto, M.A.; Torrentera, N.G.; Montano, M.F.; Estrada-Angulo, A.; Ríos, F.G.; Davila-Ramos, H.; Plascencia, A.; Zinn, R.A. Influence of ionophore supplementation on growth performance, dietary energetics and carcass characteristics in finishing cattle during period of heat stress. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 26, 1553–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S.; Beauchemin, K.A.; McAllister, T.A.; Gibb, D.J.; Streeter, M.; Kennedy, A.D. Effect of feed delivery fluctuations and feeding time on ruminal acidosis, growth performance, and feeding behavior of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 11, 3357–3365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Barajas, R.; Alvarez, R.G.; Montaño, M.F.; Zinn, R.A. Influence of day-to-day fluctuation in feed intake on feedlot cattle growth performance and digestive function. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2008, 7, 816–821. Available online: http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/javaa/2008/816-821.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2022).
  36. 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]
  37. Rigueiro, A.L.N.; Squizatti, M.M.; Silvestre, A.M.; Pinto, A.C.J.; Estevan, D.D.; Felizari, L.D.; Dias, E.F.F.; Demartini, B.L.; Nunes, A.B.P.C.; Costa, V.C.M.; et al. The potential of shortening the adaptation of Nellore cattle to high-concentrate diets using only virginiamycin as sole feed additive. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 692705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maciel, I.C.F.; Saturnino, H.M.; Barbosa, F.A.; Malacco, V.M.R.; Andrade, J.M.C., Jr.; Maia, G.H.B.; Costa, P.M. Virginiamycin and sodium monensin supplementation for beef cattle on pasture. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2008, 71, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Zeng, Z.; Zhang, S.; Wang, H.; Piao, X. Essential oil and aromatic plants as feed additives in non-ruminant nutrition: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Benchaar, C.; Petit, H.V.; Berthiaume, R.; Ouellet, D.R.; Chiquette, J.; Chouinard, P.Y. Effects of essential oils on digestion, ruminal fermentation, rumen microbial populations, milk production, and milk composition in dairy cows fed alfalfa silage or corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 886–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Meyer, N.F.; Erickson, G.E.; Klopfenstein, T.J.; Greenquist, M.A.; Luebbe, M.K.; Williams, P.; Engstrom, M.A. Effect of essential oils, tylosin, and monensin on finishing steer performance, carcass characteristics, liver abscesses, ruminal fermentation, and digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 2346–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rivaroli, D.C.; Prado, R.M.; Ornaghi, M.G.; Mottin, C.; Ramos, T.R.; Barrado, A.G.; Jorge, A.M.; Prado, I.N. Essential oils in the diet of crossbred (½ Angus vs. ½ Nellore) bulls finished in feedlot on animal performance, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 9, 2015–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Estrada-Angulo, A.; Arteaga-Wences, Y.J.; castro-Pérez, B.I.; Urías-Estrada, J.D.; Gaxiola-Camacho, S.; Angulo-Montoya, C.; Ponce-Barraza, E.; Barreras, A.; Corona, L.; Zinn, R.A.; et al. Blend of essential oils supplemented alone or combined with exogenous amylase compared with virginiamycin supplementation on finishing lambs. Animals 2021, 11, 2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.; Strathe, A.B.; Jayasundara, S.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; Dijkastra, J.; France, J.; Kebreab, E. Anti-methanogenic effects of monensin in dairy and beef cattle: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 5161–5173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Navarrete, J.D.; Montano, M.F.; Raymundo, C.; Salinas-Chavira, J.; Torrentera, N.; Zinn, R.A. Effect of energy density and virginiamycin supplementation in diets on growth performance and digestive function of finishing steers. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 10, 1396–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Robinson, K.; Becker, S.; Xiao, Y.; Lyu, W.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, H.; Yang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, G. Differential impact of subtherapeutic antibiotics and ionophores on intestinal microbiota of broilers. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 282. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780560/pdf/microorganisms-07-00282.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Samii, S.S.; Wallace, N.; Nagaraja, T.G.; Engstrom, M.A.; Miesner, M.D.; Armendariz, C.K.; Titgemeyer, E.C. Effects of limonene on ruminal Fusobacterium necrophorum concentrations, fermentation and lysine degradation in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3420–3430. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/94/8/3420/4791547?redirectedFrom=fulltext (accessed on 27 November 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Da Silva, R.; Pereira, M.N.; Araujo, C.R.; Silva, W.R.; Pereira, R.A.N. A blend of essential oils improved feed efficiency and affected ruminal and systemic variables of dairy cows. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nelson, C.D.; Reinhardt, T.A.; Lippolis, J.D.; Sacco, R.E.; Nonnecke, B.J. Vitamin D signaling in the bovine immune system: A model for understanding human vitamin D requirements. Nutrients 2012, 4, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Nuñez, A.J.C.; Caetano, M.; Berndt, A.; Demarchi, J.J.A.A.; Leme, P.R.; Lanna, D.P.D. Combined use of ionophore and virginiamycin for finishing Nellore steers fed high concentrate diets. Sci. Agric. 2013, 70, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rogers, J.A.; Branine, M.E.; Miller, C.R.; Wray, M.I.; Bartle, S.J.; Preston, R.L.; Gill, D.R.; Pritchard, R.H.; Stilborn, R.P.; Bechtol, D.T. Effects of dietary virginiamycin on performance and liver abscess incidence in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Salinas-Chavira, J.; Lenin, J.; Ponce, E.; Sanchez, U.; Torrentera, N.; Zinn, R.A. Comparative effects of virginiamycin supplementation on characteristics of growth-performance, dietary energetics, and digestion of calf-fed Holstein steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 4101–4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Neumann, M.; Pontarolo, G.B.; Cristo, F.B.; Venancio, B.J.; Manchur, A.D.; Ueno, R.K.; Souza, A.M.; Moresco, E.M.; Czelusniak, C. Associative effect of monensin sodium to virginiamycin on the performance of beef steers in the initial feedlot phase. Semin. Ciências Agrárias Londrina 2020, 41, 2349–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Araujo, R.C.; Daley, D.R.; Goodall, S.R.; Jalali, S.; Guimarães Bisneto, A.; Budde, A.M.; Wagner, J.J.; Engle, T.E. Effects of a microencapsulated blend of essential oils supplemented alone or in combination with monensin on performance and carcass characteristics of growing and finishing beef steers. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2019, 35, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. de Souza, K.A.; Monsteschio, J.O.; Mottin, C.; Ramos, T.R.; Pinto, L.A.M.; Eiras, C.E.; Guerrero, A.; Prado, I.N. Effects of diet supplementation with clove and rosemary essential oils and protected oils (eugenol, thymol and vanillin) on animal performance, carcass characteristics, digestibility, and ingestive behavior activities for Nellore heifers finished in feedlot. Livest. Sci. 2019, 220, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Pickworth, C.L.; Loerch, S.C.; Fluharty, F.L. Restriction of vitamin A and D in beef cattle finishing diets on feedlot performance and adipose accretion. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 1866–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wilson, H.C.; Hilscher, F.H.; Boyd, B.M.; Watson, A.K.; McDonald, J.C.; Erickson, G.E. Impact of essential oils blend on beef cattle performance and carcass characteristics in diets with increasing corn silage inclusions. Neb. Beef Cattle Rep. 2020, 1076, 71–74. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/1076 (accessed on 7 July 2021). [CrossRef]
  58. National Academy of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Vitamin Tolerance of Animals; National Academy Science of Sciences Engineering Medicine (NASEM): Washington, DC, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  59. Półtorak, J.R.; Moczkowska, M.; Wyrwisz, J.; Wierzbicka, A. Beef tenderness improvement by dietary vitamin D3 supplementation in the last stage of fattening of cattle. J. Vet. Res. 2017, 61, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Baldin, S.; Domingues, D.; Ludovico, C.; Cravo, A.S.; Sfaciotti, R.; Arrigoti, M. Feedlot performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of Nellore and Canchim bulls fed diets supplemented with vitamins D and E. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 2013, 35, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Nelson, C.D.; Lippolis, J.D.; Reinhardt, T.A.; Sacco, R.E.; Powell, J.L.; Drewnosky, M.E.; O’Neil, M.O.; Beits, D.C.; Weiss, W.P. Vitamin D status of dairy cattle: Outcomes of current practices in the dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 10150–10160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Montgomery, J.L.; Parrish, F.C., Jr.; Beitz, D.C.; Horst, R.L.; Huff-Lonergan, E.J.; Trenkle, H. The use of vitamin D3 to improve beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 2615–2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Aranda-Osorio, G.; Olkowski, A.A.; McAllister, T.A.; Van Kessel, A.; McKinnon, J.J. Effect of supplementing high levels of vitamin D3 on calcium homeostasis of steers fed barley-based finishing diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 84, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Korn, K.T.; Lemenager, R.P.; Claeys, M.C.; Engstrom, M.; Schoonmaker, J.P. Supplemental vitamin D3 and zilpaterol hydrochloride. I. Effect on performance carcass traits, tenderness, and vitamin D metabolites of feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 3322–3331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. McCarthy, K.L.; Underdahl, S.R.; Dahlen, C.R. Effects of a vitamin and mineral bolus on beef heifer feedlot performance, feeding behavior, carcass characteristics, and liver mineral concentrations. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pukrop, J.R.; Campbell, B.T.; Schoonmaker, J.P. Effect of essential oils on performance, liver abscesses, carcass characteristics, and meat quality in feedlot steers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2019, 257, 11496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Composition of basal diet fed by cattle.
Table 1. Composition of basal diet fed by cattle.
Treatments
ItemMON + VMEO + HYD
Ingredient composition (% DM basis)
Corn stover12.0012.00
Steam-flaked corn67.8067.80
Soybean meal (Ref 5-20-637) [19]6.006.00
Premix dilution MON + VM §1.50----
Premix dilution EO + HyD †---1.50
Molasses cane7.507.50
Yellow grease2.702.70
Agromix SP ‡2.502.50
Chemical composition (%DM basis) ⁋
  Dry matter84.6084.60
  Crude protein11.8011.80
  Rumen degradable protein (as % of protein)59.8259.82
    Neutral detergent fiber15.3615.36
    Calcium0.810.81
    Phosphorus0.300.30
Calculated net energy (Mcal/kg)
    Metabolizable energy3.053.05
    Maintenance2.142.14
    Gain1.461.46
† Agromix SP contained the following: CP, 53.0%; calcium, 13.6%; phosphorus, 0.40%; magnesium, 1.0%; potassium, 0.71%; NaCl, 15%; Co, 5.59 ppm; Fe, 2759 ppm; Zn, 2913 ppm; Cu, 20 ppm; Mn, 1674 ppm; vitamin A, 225 IU/g; vitamin E, 1.26 UI/g (Agronutrientes del Norte, Monterrey, NL, Mexico). § Premix dilution contained the following (per 10 kg): calcium, 20.9%; phosphorus, 3.9%; Vit A, 40,000 KUI; Vit D3, 50,000 KUI; biotin, 1.87 ppm; Lactonúcleo industrial (trace mineral), 50 g/kg; 13 g of monensin/kg diet plus 13 g of virginiamycin/kg diet. ‡ Premix dilution contained the following (per 10 kg): calcium, 20.9%; phosphorus, 3.9%; Vit A, 40,000 KUI; Vit D3, 50,000 KUI; biotin, 1.87 ppm; Lactonúcleo industrial (trace mineral), 50 g/kg; 67 g of EO plus 0.54 g of HyD/kg diet (CRINA Ruminants and Hy-D; DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland, Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland). ⁋ Nutrient composition (except DM which was determined in laboratory) and net energy values are based on the diet formulation and tabular values for individual feed ingredients [19].
Table
Table 2. Effect of treatments on growth-performance and dietary energy of finishing cattle.
Table 2. Effect of treatments on growth-performance and dietary energy of finishing cattle.
Treatments †
ItemMON + VMEO + HyDSEMp-Value
Days on test8787
Pen replicates99
Live weight, kg/day §
        Initial349.43349.743.1530.98
        Final472.80474.415.1800.69
Average daily gain, kg/day1.4181.4330.0410.67
Dry matter intake, kg/day7.8557.9650.2020.64
Daily DM intake variation,%3.8811.373.960.04
Feed efficiency, kg/kg0.1810.1800.0020.17
Diet net energy, Mcal/kg
        Maintenance 2.262.250.0230.67
          Gain1.571.560.0170.67
  Observed-to-expected diet NE, Mcal/kg
        Maintenance 1.0561.0520.0090.67
          Gain1.0761.0700.0120.67
Observed-to-expected DMI0.9360.9400.0090.67
† MON = monensin 20 g/ton; MON + VM = combined 20 g monensin + 20 g virginiamycin/ton; EO + HyD = standardized source of a mixture of essential oils (CRINA Ruminants; DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland) plus 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3 (Hy-D; DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland) formulated to provide 120 mg/kg diet EOC plus 0.12 mg/kg diet HyD. § Initial shrunk weight is the full live weight reduced 4% to adjustment for gastrointestinal fill; final weight was registered after 16 h of fasting.
Table
Table 3. Effect of treatments on carcass characteristics of finishing cattle.
Table 3. Effect of treatments on carcass characteristics of finishing cattle.
Treatments †
ItemMON + VMEO + HyDSEMp-Value
Hot carcass weight, kg300.93306.132.890.10
Dressing percentage63.6564.530.470.17
Cold carcass weight, kg 297.87301.532.880.12
Cooler shrink, %1.381.510.0910.32
LM area, cm282.7789.892.39<0.01
Fat thickness, cm0.740.690.0420.39
Kidney pelvic and heart fat, %1.731.650.0500.53
Marbling score §17118812.10.33
Retail yield *52.6353.510.210.03
† MON = monensin 20 g/ton; MON + VM = combined 20 g monensin + 20 g virginiamycin/ton; EO + HyD = standardized source of a mixture of essential oils (CRINA Ruminants; DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland) plus 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3 (Hy-D; DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland) formulated to provide 120 mg/kg diet EOC plus 0.12 mg/kg diet HyD. § Estimated marbling grade coded as standard <300, minimum slight = 300, or minimum small = 400. * Estimated retail yield of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts from the round, loin, rib, and chuck (% of HCW) was estimated as follows: retail yield = 52.56 − 1.95 × subcutaneous fat − 1.06 × KPH + 0.106 × LM area − 0.018 × HCW [25].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Estrada-Angulo, A.; Mendoza-Cortez, D.A.; Ramos-Méndez, J.L.; Arteaga-Wences, Y.J.; Urías-Estrada, J.D.; Castro-Pérez, B.I.; Ríos-Rincón, F.G.; Rodríguez-Gaxiola, M.A.; Barreras, A.; Zinn, R.A.; et al. Comparing Blend of Essential Oils Plus 25-Hydroxy-Vit-D3 Versus Monensin Plus Virginiamycin Combination in Finishing Feedlot Cattle: Growth Performance, Dietary Energetics, and Carcass Traits. Animals 2022, 12, 1715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131715

AMA Style

Estrada-Angulo A, Mendoza-Cortez DA, Ramos-Méndez JL, Arteaga-Wences YJ, Urías-Estrada JD, Castro-Pérez BI, Ríos-Rincón FG, Rodríguez-Gaxiola MA, Barreras A, Zinn RA, et al. Comparing Blend of Essential Oils Plus 25-Hydroxy-Vit-D3 Versus Monensin Plus Virginiamycin Combination in Finishing Feedlot Cattle: Growth Performance, Dietary Energetics, and Carcass Traits. Animals. 2022; 12(13):1715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131715

Chicago/Turabian Style

Estrada-Angulo, Alfredo, Daniel A. Mendoza-Cortez, Jorge L. Ramos-Méndez, Yesica J. Arteaga-Wences, Jesús D. Urías-Estrada, Beatriz I. Castro-Pérez, Francisco G. Ríos-Rincón, Miguel A. Rodríguez-Gaxiola, Alberto Barreras, Richard A. Zinn, and et al. 2022. "Comparing Blend of Essential Oils Plus 25-Hydroxy-Vit-D3 Versus Monensin Plus Virginiamycin Combination in Finishing Feedlot Cattle: Growth Performance, Dietary Energetics, and Carcass Traits" Animals 12, no. 13: 1715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131715

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