饲喂酿酒酵母发酵产物与直接饲喂微生物对西北太平洋地区牛乳杂交阉牛育肥期饲粮的影响

IF 1.8 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Translational Animal Science Pub Date : 2025-07-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/tas/txaf098
Sydney M Bowman-Schnug, Bradley J Johnson, O Abe Turgeon, Joaquin Figueroa, Craig R Belknap, Zebadiah T L Gray, Thomas S Edrington
{"title":"饲喂酿酒酵母发酵产物与直接饲喂微生物对西北太平洋地区牛乳杂交阉牛育肥期饲粮的影响","authors":"Sydney M Bowman-Schnug, Bradley J Johnson, O Abe Turgeon, Joaquin Figueroa, Craig R Belknap, Zebadiah T L Gray, Thomas S Edrington","doi":"10.1093/tas/txaf098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> fermentation product (SCFP) compared to a direct-fed microbial (DFM) on growth performance, health, carcass characteristics, and liver abscess prevalence in beef × dairy crossbred steers. Two thousand steers [50% beef, 25% Holstein, 25% Jersey genetics; initial shrunk body weight (SBW) = 288.2 ± 8.0 kg] were blocked by arrival date and randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 treatments: 1) SCFP supplied in the starter diet at 12 g per steer daily and then 9 g per steer daily in the finishing diet (NS; NaturSafe™, Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA) or 2) DFM fed at 50 mg per steer daily throughout the feeding period (BD; Bovamine Defend, Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, WI). Pen served as the experimental unit (200 steers/pen), with 5 pens per treatment. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design in R 4.2.2. with the main effect of treatment and random effect of block included in the model. Results were reported on a deads-in basis unless otherwise stated. Cattle were fed for a total of 275 ± 6.2 d. Initial and final SBW did not differ (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.84) by treatment. Initial treatment pulls were observed more frequently for NS compared to BD cattle (29.43% vs. 21.67%; <i>P</i> < 0.01). However, NS cattle had a lesser rate of repulls as a proportion of initial pulls (10.08% vs. 16.61%; <i>P</i> = 0.03). Fewer (<i>P</i> < 0.01) bullers were reported amongst NS cattle. Cattle supplemented with NS had a lower case fatality rate (6.08% vs. 11.96%; <i>P</i> < 0.01) and tended to have a lower total mortality rate (1.60% vs. 2.70%; <i>P</i> = 0.09) than BD. With deads included, average daily gain (ADG) tended (<i>P</i> = 0.06) to be greater for NS cattle. Dry matter intake did not differ (<i>P</i> = 0.99) by treatment; however, NS cattle had a numeric advantage in feed efficiency (G:F) nearing a tendency (0.132 vs. 0.130; <i>P</i> = 0.11). On a deads-out basis, ADG and G:F were similar (<i>P </i>≥ 0.85). Dressing percentage tended (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.10) to be greater for NS carcasses. Cattle fed BD had a greater (<i>P</i> = 0.03) proportion of USDA Prime carcasses. While treatment had no impact on liver abscess severity or total abscess occurrence, NS cattle tended to have less A- abscesses (1.72% vs. 3.87%; <i>P</i> = 0.10). In this large-pen comparison, SCFP supplementation improved feedlot cattle health and positively influenced performance compared to a DFM.</p>","PeriodicalId":23272,"journal":{"name":"Translational Animal Science","volume":"9 ","pages":"txaf098"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12314598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of feeding a <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> fermentation product compared to a direct-fed microbial in finishing diets of beef × dairy crossbred steers fed in the Pacific Northwest.\",\"authors\":\"Sydney M Bowman-Schnug, Bradley J Johnson, O Abe Turgeon, Joaquin Figueroa, Craig R Belknap, Zebadiah T L Gray, Thomas S Edrington\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tas/txaf098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> fermentation product (SCFP) compared to a direct-fed microbial (DFM) on growth performance, health, carcass characteristics, and liver abscess prevalence in beef × dairy crossbred steers. Two thousand steers [50% beef, 25% Holstein, 25% Jersey genetics; initial shrunk body weight (SBW) = 288.2 ± 8.0 kg] were blocked by arrival date and randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 treatments: 1) SCFP supplied in the starter diet at 12 g per steer daily and then 9 g per steer daily in the finishing diet (NS; NaturSafe™, Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA) or 2) DFM fed at 50 mg per steer daily throughout the feeding period (BD; Bovamine Defend, Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, WI). Pen served as the experimental unit (200 steers/pen), with 5 pens per treatment. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design in R 4.2.2. with the main effect of treatment and random effect of block included in the model. Results were reported on a deads-in basis unless otherwise stated. Cattle were fed for a total of 275 ± 6.2 d. Initial and final SBW did not differ (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.84) by treatment. Initial treatment pulls were observed more frequently for NS compared to BD cattle (29.43% vs. 21.67%; <i>P</i> < 0.01). However, NS cattle had a lesser rate of repulls as a proportion of initial pulls (10.08% vs. 16.61%; <i>P</i> = 0.03). Fewer (<i>P</i> < 0.01) bullers were reported amongst NS cattle. Cattle supplemented with NS had a lower case fatality rate (6.08% vs. 11.96%; <i>P</i> < 0.01) and tended to have a lower total mortality rate (1.60% vs. 2.70%; <i>P</i> = 0.09) than BD. With deads included, average daily gain (ADG) tended (<i>P</i> = 0.06) to be greater for NS cattle. Dry matter intake did not differ (<i>P</i> = 0.99) by treatment; however, NS cattle had a numeric advantage in feed efficiency (G:F) nearing a tendency (0.132 vs. 0.130; <i>P</i> = 0.11). On a deads-out basis, ADG and G:F were similar (<i>P </i>≥ 0.85). Dressing percentage tended (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.10) to be greater for NS carcasses. Cattle fed BD had a greater (<i>P</i> = 0.03) proportion of USDA Prime carcasses. While treatment had no impact on liver abscess severity or total abscess occurrence, NS cattle tended to have less A- abscesses (1.72% vs. 3.87%; <i>P</i> = 0.10). In this large-pen comparison, SCFP supplementation improved feedlot cattle health and positively influenced performance compared to a DFM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"txaf098\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12314598/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是评价酿酒酵母发酵产物(SCFP)与直接饲喂微生物(DFM)对牛乳杂交阉牛生长性能、健康状况、胴体特性和肝脓肿患病率的影响。2000头阉牛[50%牛肉,25%荷斯坦,25%泽西遗传;初始收缩体重(SBW) = 288.2±8.0 kg)被到达日期阻断,随机分配接受2种处理中的1种:1)在起始日粮中每头牛每天提供12 g SCFP,然后在肥育日粮中每头牛每天提供9 g SCFP (NS;NaturSafe™,Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA)或2)在整个喂养期间,每头牛每天饲喂50毫克的DFM (BD;Bovamine Defend, Chr。汉森,密尔沃基,威斯康星州)。实验单位为笔(200头/笔),每次处理5只笔。数据采用r4.2.2随机完全区组设计进行分析。模型中包含了治疗的主效应和阻滞的随机效应。除另有说明外,结果以死亡为基础报告。牛共饲喂275±6.2 d。不同处理的初始和最终体重无显著差异(P≥0.84)。与BD牛相比,NS牛的初始治疗拉伤更频繁(29.43% vs. 21.67%;p = 0.03)。(P P P = 0.09)低于BD (P P P = 0.09)。算上死亡,NS牛的平均日增重(ADG)倾向于更高(P = 0.06)。各处理间干物质采食量无显著差异(P = 0.99);然而,NS牛在饲料效率(G:F)方面具有接近趋势的数值优势(0.132 vs. 0.130;p = 0.11)。在死亡基础上,ADG和G:F相似(P≥0.85)。NS胴体的屠宰率倾向于(P≤0.10)更高。饲喂BD的牛的USDA优质胴体比例更高(P = 0.03)。虽然治疗对肝脓肿严重程度和总脓肿发生率没有影响,但NS牛的A-脓肿发生率倾向于减少(1.72% vs. 3.87%;p = 0.10)。在这个大型猪圈的比较中,与DFM相比,添加SCFP改善了饲养场牛的健康状况,并对生产性能产生了积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of feeding a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product compared to a direct-fed microbial in finishing diets of beef × dairy crossbred steers fed in the Pacific Northwest.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP) compared to a direct-fed microbial (DFM) on growth performance, health, carcass characteristics, and liver abscess prevalence in beef × dairy crossbred steers. Two thousand steers [50% beef, 25% Holstein, 25% Jersey genetics; initial shrunk body weight (SBW) = 288.2 ± 8.0 kg] were blocked by arrival date and randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 treatments: 1) SCFP supplied in the starter diet at 12 g per steer daily and then 9 g per steer daily in the finishing diet (NS; NaturSafe™, Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA) or 2) DFM fed at 50 mg per steer daily throughout the feeding period (BD; Bovamine Defend, Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, WI). Pen served as the experimental unit (200 steers/pen), with 5 pens per treatment. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design in R 4.2.2. with the main effect of treatment and random effect of block included in the model. Results were reported on a deads-in basis unless otherwise stated. Cattle were fed for a total of 275 ± 6.2 d. Initial and final SBW did not differ (P ≥ 0.84) by treatment. Initial treatment pulls were observed more frequently for NS compared to BD cattle (29.43% vs. 21.67%; P < 0.01). However, NS cattle had a lesser rate of repulls as a proportion of initial pulls (10.08% vs. 16.61%; P = 0.03). Fewer (P < 0.01) bullers were reported amongst NS cattle. Cattle supplemented with NS had a lower case fatality rate (6.08% vs. 11.96%; P < 0.01) and tended to have a lower total mortality rate (1.60% vs. 2.70%; P = 0.09) than BD. With deads included, average daily gain (ADG) tended (P = 0.06) to be greater for NS cattle. Dry matter intake did not differ (P = 0.99) by treatment; however, NS cattle had a numeric advantage in feed efficiency (G:F) nearing a tendency (0.132 vs. 0.130; P = 0.11). On a deads-out basis, ADG and G:F were similar (P ≥ 0.85). Dressing percentage tended (P ≤ 0.10) to be greater for NS carcasses. Cattle fed BD had a greater (P = 0.03) proportion of USDA Prime carcasses. While treatment had no impact on liver abscess severity or total abscess occurrence, NS cattle tended to have less A- abscesses (1.72% vs. 3.87%; P = 0.10). In this large-pen comparison, SCFP supplementation improved feedlot cattle health and positively influenced performance compared to a DFM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Animal Science
Translational Animal Science Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Translational Animal Science (TAS) is the first open access-open review animal science journal, encompassing a broad scope of research topics in animal science. TAS focuses on translating basic science to innovation, and validation of these innovations by various segments of the allied animal industry. Readers of TAS will typically represent education, industry, and government, including research, teaching, administration, extension, management, quality assurance, product development, and technical services. Those interested in TAS typically include animal breeders, economists, embryologists, engineers, food scientists, geneticists, microbiologists, nutritionists, veterinarians, physiologists, processors, public health professionals, and others with an interest in animal production and applied aspects of animal sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信