Additives and supplements are often added to concentrate and conserved feeds for both ruminants and monogastrics to maximise feed efficiency, optimise animal health, bridge nutrient deficiencies, and improve economic returns. This may include incorporating polyphenols, such as tannins, extracted from natural plant by-products (e.g., grape pomace or extracts from wattle, quebracho and chestnut trees) to improve animal performance, biohydrogenation processes, quality and quantity of milk and meat, and to reduce methanogenesis. The focus is solely on the use of tannins as an additive—obtained from either extracts or natural variants of feedstuff containing higher amounts of these compounds —and the use of tannins as an additive directly from forages. A review of 72 studies where extracts of, or plants containing, tannins were added to concentrate or conserved feeds for ruminant animals indicated that 63% of cattle/cow studies and 54% of sheep/goat studies confirmed positive benefits. Reasons why benefits were not observed include using the ‘wrong’ type or concentration of tannin, the negation of tannin effects by other compounds in the extract, an unsuitable combination of tannin type and concentrate, or the developmental status of the ruminant. However, assuming this practice continues, this raises the question of whether tannin expression in the main ingredient of concentrate or conserved, feed such as maize or soybean, would be beneficial. For monogastrics, 20 studies for each poultry and swine were reviewed. The inclusion of tannins in feed for poultry provided little nutritional benefit reduced infection where coccidiosis severity due to microbial infection was measured. Tannin extracts fed to pigs produced variable results, ranging from no appreciable influence at low levels to a negative impact on the nutritive value of feed, although in some cases, animal health was improved. In conclusion, inclusion of tannin extracts appears to provide more benefit for ruminants than monogastrics, particularly poultry. The most likely benefits for ruminants fed tannin-containing diets are reduced methane emissions and improved gut health through an anthelmintic effect.
Flávia dos Santos Nunes, Bárbara Bianca Porto de Avelar Dias, José Esler de Freitas Júnior, Hérick Pachêco Rodrigues, Joyanne Mirelle de Sousa Ferreira, Alana Venâncio da Silva, João Pedro Souza Santana, Lígia Lins Souza, Stefanie Alvarenga Santos, Gleidson Giordano Pinto de Carvalho, José Augusto Gomes Azevêdo
Oilseed processing can alter lipid accessibility during digestion, potentially affecting microbial activity, nutrient utilization, and animal performance in high-concentrate feeding systems. This study evaluated the effects of sunflower seed processing and chitosan supplementation on nutrient utilization, estimated microbial nitrogen production, growth performance, ingestive behavior, and economic indicators in feedlot ewe lambs. Thirty-two ewe lambs (15.12 ± 3.57 kg BW) were randomly assigned to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement consisting of two sunflower seed processing methods (whole or ground) and two chitosan levels (0 or 4 g/kg DM). The animals were fed diets with a 25:75 roughage-to-concentrate ratio. Sunflower seed processing did not affect nutrient intake, and no interactions were observed for the intake or digestibility variables. However, lambs fed whole sunflower seeds showed greater apparent digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, non-fiber carbohydrates, and total digestible nutrients than those fed ground seeds (P ≤ 0.007). Whole sunflower seeds also increased nitrogen absorption (+8%), nitrogen retention (+15%), estimated microbial nitrogen production (+41%), and estimated microbial efficiency (+31%) (P < 0.05). These responses were associated with greater average daily gain (254.1 vs. 215.2 g/d) and feed efficiency (P ≤ 0.028), despite similar dry matter intake across treatments. Interactions between sunflower seed processing and chitosan were detected for rumination time and rumination efficiency (P < 0.05), with chitosan reducing the differences between whole and ground seeds. Under the price assumptions used, whole sunflower seeds without chitosan showed the highest descriptive net margin. Overall, whole sunflower seeds improved nutrient utilization and animal performance, whereas chitosan supplementation at 4 g/kg DM provided no additional measurable productive benefits under the conditions evaluated.
Fernando J. Guardado Servellón, David L. Renaud, Nolan Davies, Madyson Dailey, Kelsey L. Spence, Trevor J. DeVries, Rita Couto Serrenho
Artificial intelligence can help identify suboptimal milking practices and provide reports without time-consuming visits. The objective of this study was to validate a computer-vision milking parlour monitoring system (CVS, Cattle Care Inc.) by comparing its reports against trained human observers (n = 2, comparison method). A camera was installed in the parlour of two dairy farms in Ontario, Canada, one operating a herringbone parlour and the other a parallel parlour. Four one-hour segments (2 per farm), selected by the CVS, were independently analysed by human observers and the CVS. Prep-lag time, average unit-on time, turn time, and milking protocol deviations were assessed in each shift and compared between methods. For continuous variables, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated to evaluate the agreement between CVS and human observers; Bland–Altman plots were used to assess systematic bias. For categorical variables, the F-score was calculated to assess event-detection performance. The CCC for unit-on time (n=44 milking turns) was 0.999 (95% CI: 0.999-0.999), for prep-lag time (n = 214 cows) was 0.995 (95% CI: 0.994–0.996) and for turn time (n = 25 turns) was 0.998 (95% CI: 0.997–0.999). All protocol deviations flagged by the human observers (n = 51 events) were detected by the CVS; six towel misuse events detected by the CVS were missed by the human observers. An F-score of 1 was obtained for the CVS method. Under the conditions tested, the CVS demonstrated high agreement with human observations for prep-lag time, unit-on time, turn time, and milking-protocol deviations, while also identifying some events not detected by human observers. The assessed technology may complement human expertise by enabling more efficient and streamlined assessment of milking parlour performance.
Overweight and obesity are common in domestic cats, and are associated with a range of adverse health outcomes. To investigate the impact of a vegan diet on body weight and related health disorders, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey and analyzed carer-reported veterinary assessments concerning 1,305 cats. We compared the data regarding cats fed conventional meat-based (90.3% - 1,178) and vegan (9.7% - 127) diets for at least one year. The body weight related disorders assessed included overweight, underweight, osteoarthritis/arthritis, intervertebral disc disease, other mobility disorders and other musculoskeletal problems. Cats fed vegan diets showed lower odds of being classified as overweight compared to those fed a meat-based diet. In unadjusted analyses, odds of being overweight were 24% lower. These were 34% lower after adjustment for age, sex, neuter status, activity and feeding practices. However, these estimates were not statistically significant and confidence intervals were wide due to relatively low observed numbers of vegan-fed cats. Lower odds of being underweight were also observed but were not statistically significant. No vegan-fed cats suffered from any of the other body weight-related disorders assessed, which may have been due to the relatively low numbers of vegan-fed cats included in the survey. This low prevalence precluded statistical comparison for these secondary outcomes. Overall, cats fed vegan diets had lower rates of body weight-related disorders within this sample. This result persisted when incorporating cats fed a raw meat diet into the analysis. However, given the small number of cases combined with the moderately sized vegan-fed group, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and considered exploratory.
Ana Luiza Mendonça Pinto, Robson Mateus Freitas Silveira, Ayres Gustavo Dias Nogueira, Iran José Oliveira da Silva
Multidimensional on-farm assessment can identify welfare constraints that are not evident from production records alone, but protocols developed for housed cattle require careful interpretation when applied to pasture-based herds. This cross-sectional, descriptive multi-case study characterized dairy-cow welfare profiles in six purposively selected farms located in three milk-producing regions of São Paulo State, Brazil: three pasture-based and three continuously confined farms, with one of each management context per region. Confined farms were assessed using the dairy-cow module of the 2009 Welfare Quality ® Assessment Protocol for Cattle, whereas pasture-based farms were evaluated with the adaptation proposed. Results were summarized descriptively at farm level; no inferential comparison between production systems was attempted. Four farms were classified as Enhanced and two as Acceptable; none was classified as Excellent. Good Health was consistently the lowest-scoring principle, ranging from 30 to 35 in pasture-based farms and from 22 to 25 in confined farms. Moderate and severe locomotion impairment ranged from 14.0-28.0% and 0.0-8.0%, respectively, among the three pasture-based cases and from 30.0-41.0% and 18.0-24.0% among the three confined cases; these numerical ranges are descriptive only and were not subjected to inferential comparison. At least one serious cleanliness problem occurred on every farm, and severe integument alterations ranged from 25.0-57.0% among the three pasture-based cases and from 41.0-65.0% among the three confined cases. Water cleanliness or availability, insufficient shade on two pasture-based farms, and hot-iron disbudding without anesthesia or analgesia were additional concerns. Appropriate Behavior scores ranged from 38 to 67 among the pasture-based cases and from 11 to 31 among the confined cases, but these values are not directly comparable because the implemented assessment procedures differed, including the pasture-access criterion. These historical case profiles show that an Enhanced overall classification can coexist with substantial health and hygiene constraints. Farm-specific monitoring, lameness prevention, improved hygiene and water management, pain mitigation, and worker education should be prioritized, while direct system comparisons require common measures and larger representative samples.
