Effect of Encapsulated Nitrate and Microencapsulated Blend of Essential Oils on Growth Performance and Methane Emissions from Beef Steers Fed Backgrounding Diets.

Aklilu Alemu,Rafael Araujo,Atmir Romero-Pérez,Karen Beauchemin

doi:10.3390/ani9010021

Aklilu Alemu, Rafael Araujo + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9010021

Copy DOI

Abstract

Simple SummaryThe use of supplemental dietary nitrate (NO3−) to minimize enteric methane (CH4) emissions from ruminants is hindered by potential toxicity effects. In the current study, the potential effects of feeding encapsulated NO3− (EN), microencapsulated blend of essential oils (MBEO), and their combination on growth performance and enteric CH4 emissions of beef cattle were evaluated. There was no interaction effect between feeding EN and MBEO on CH4 emissions and the presence of MBEO did not affect the potential of EN to reduce CH4. Feeding MBEO increased CH4 emissions without affecting animal performance. Inclusion of EN as a replacement for urea reduced CH4 emissions without incurring any adverse effects on cattle health and performance.A long-term study (112 days) was conducted to examine the effect of feeding encapsulated nitrate (NO3−), microencapsulated blend of essential oils (EO), and their combination on growth performance, feeding behavior, and enteric methane (CH4) emissions of beef cattle. A total of 88 crossbred steers were purchased and assigned to one of four treatments: (i) control, backgrounding high-forage diet supplemented with urea (1.17% in dietary DM); (ii) encapsulated NO3− (EN), control diet supplemented with 2.5% encapsulated NO3− as a replacement for urea (1.785% NO3− in the dietary DM); (iii) microencapsulated blend of EO (MBEO), control diet supplemented with 150 mg/kg DM of microencapsulated blend of EO and pepper extract; and (iv) EN + MBEO, control diet supplemented with EN and MBEO. There was no interaction (p ≥ 0.080) between EN and MBEO on average dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), gain to feed ratio (G:F), feeding behavior, and CH4 emission (using GreenFeed system), implying independent effects of feeding EN and MBEO. Feeding MBEO increased CH4 production (165.0 versus 183.2 g/day; p = 0.005) and yield (18.9 versus 21.4 g/kg DMI; p = 0.0002) but had no effect (p ≥ 0.479) on average DMI, ADG, G:F, and feeding behavior. However, feeding EN had no effect on ADG and G:F (p ≥ 0.119) but reduced DMI (8.9 versus 8.4 kg/day; p = 0.003) and CH4 yield (21.5 versus 18.7 g/kg DMI; p < 0.001). Feeding EN slowed (p = 0.001) the feeding rate (g of DM/min) and increased (p = 0.002) meal frequency (events/day). Our results demonstrate that supplementing diets with a blend of EO did not lower CH4 emissions and there were no advantages of feeding MBEO with EN. Inclusion of EN as a replacement for urea reduced CH4 emissions but had no positive impact on animal performance.

Highlights

Over the past decades, livestock research has been focused on developing strategies to reduce the environmental impacts of ruminant animals [1]
EN represents the main effect of encapsulated nitrate (−EN −microencapsulated blend of EO (MBEO) and −EN +MBEO) versus
−MBEO and +EN +MBEO); MBEO represents the main effects of microencapsulated blend of essential was reduced (p = 0.012) by 4.1% for EN (444 versus 463 kg) but it was not affected oils (−EN −MBEO and +EN −MBEO) versus (−EN +MBEO and +EN +MBEO); +EN +MBEO represents by MBEO

Summary

Introduction

Livestock research has been focused on developing strategies to reduce the environmental impacts of ruminant animals [1]. As enteric methane (CH4 ) emission is the major contributor of total emissions in ruminant farming, different mitigation strategies including feed additives (e.g., inhibitors, ionophores, plant bioactive compounds, electron receptors, dietary lipids), feed (e.g., high starch grains, lipids), and feeding management (e.g., forage quality and management, feed processing, feeding frequency, precision feeding) have been directed towards minimizing enteric. Feeding nitrate (NO3 − ) to ruminant animals as a replacement for urea has received attention as a promising methane-mitigating approach, as several studies have shown that feeding NO3 −. Reduction in enteric CH4 was not observed from feedlot animals managed outdoors and supplemented with encapsulated NO3 − at 1.25 and 2.5% on a dry matter (DM) basis [10,11]. Despite its positive effects on CH4 reduction, feeding NO3 − could pose a potential risk of NO3 − /nitrite (NO2 − )

Methods

Results

Conclusion