Effects of feeding different probiotic types on metabolic, performance, and carcass responses of Bos indicus feedlot cattle offered a high-concentrate diet

Abstract

Abstract Two experiments were designed to evaluate the effects of different probiotic combinations on rumen fermentation characteristics, performance, and carcass characteristics of feedlot Bos indicus beef bulls offered a high-concentrate diet. In experiment 1, 30 rumen-fistulated Nellore steers were blocked by initial body weight (BW = 350 ± 35.0 kg) and within blocks (n = 10), animals were randomly assigned to receive: 1) high-concentrate diet without probiotic supplementation (n = 10; CONT), 2) CONT plus 1 g per head of a probiotic mixture containing three strains of Enterococcus faecium and one strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (3.5 × 109 CFU/g; n = 10; EFSC), and 3) CONT plus 2 g per head of a probiotic mixture containing Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis (3.2 × 109 CFU/g; n = 10; BLBS). The experimental period lasted 35 d, being 28 d of adaptation and 7 d of sampling. From day 34 to day 35 of the experimental period, ruminal fluid and fecal samples were collected every 3 h, starting immediately before feeding (0 h) for rumen fermentation characteristics and apparent nutrient digestibility analysis, respectively. In experiment 2, 240 Nellore bulls were ranked by initial shrunk BW (375 ± 35.1 kg), assigned to pens (n = 4 bulls per pen), and pens randomly assigned to receive the same treatments as in experiment 1 (n = 20 pens per treatment). Regardless of treatment, all bulls received the same step-up and finishing diets throughout the experimental period, which lasted 115 d. In both experiments, data were analyzed as orthogonal contrasts to partition-specific treatment effects: 1) probiotic effect: CONT vs. PROB and 2) probiotic type: EFSC vs. BLBS (SAS Software Inc.). In experiment 1, no contrast effects were observed on nutrient intake, overall nutrient digestibility, and rumen fermentation analyses (P ≥ 0.13). Nonetheless, supplementation of probiotics, regardless of type (P = 0.59), reduced mean acetate:propionate ratio and rumen ammonia-N concentration vs. CONT (P ≤ 0.05). In experiment 2, no significant effects were observed for final BW and dry matter intake (P ≥ 0.12), but average daily gain and feed efficiency tended to improve (P ≤ 0.10) when probiotics were offered to the animals. Probiotic supplementation or type of probiotic did not affect carcass traits (P ≥ 0.22). In summary, supplementation of probiotics containing a mixture of E. faecium and S. cerevisiae or a mixture of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis reduced rumen acetate:propionate ratio and rumen ammonia-N levels and tended to improve the performance of feedlot cattle offered a high-concentrate diet.