Keywords
cattle - feed conversion - grazing - natural additive -
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Introduction
The Pantanal stands out for its economy based on beef cattle farming, with 67.3% of
the biome dedicated solely to pastures, which form the basis of cattle feed.[1] However, forage production is subject to considerable fluctuations throughout the
months due to climatic influences. This variability is characterized by two distinct
periods: one of high productivity, with an abundant supply of high-quality forage,
and another of low productivity, during which forage availability is reduced and,
consequently, its quality is compromised.[2]
In this context, aiming to address the nutrient deficiencies present in pasture-based
cattle production systems, various additives have been introduced to the market to
improve ruminant efficiency.[3] Among these, homeopathic products can act as animal performance enhancers,[4] working in a more natural and less aggressive manner to promote animal welfare.[5]
According to Guturu et al[6] and Pasalkar et al,[7] homeopathy has antimicrobial action, functioning in the body as a natural defense
agent, where some homeopathic products have shown efficacy against various microorganisms,
presenting themselves as an alternative to conventional antimicrobials due to their
ability to stimulate immune responses without the common side effects associated with
traditional therapies.
The use of yeasts, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, has also gained prominence due to their potential to optimize ruminant health, performance,
and production efficiency. Various mechanisms of action for yeasts have been proposed,
ranging from competition for binding sites or competitive exclusion,[8] to immune system stimulation,[9] nutritional effects,[10] production of antibacterial substances,[11] and enzymatic activity.[12]
Another critical point for the success of extensive beef cattle production systems
is the use of animals adapted to local environmental conditions. In this regard, the
Pantaneira breed stands out for its resilience to the extreme conditions of the Pantanal
biome, such as high temperatures and intermittent flooding. Although classified within
the species Bos taurus, the Pantaneira breed has notably adapted to its environment, becoming an indigenous
breed that now faces the risk of extinction. It possesses unique feeding habits, with
a high capacity for the ingestion and utilization of native forages, as well as tolerance
to ecto- and endoparasites. Therefore, it is an ideal breed for the production systems
practiced in the Pantanal, potentially improving livestock performance due to its
rusticity and adaptability to the environment.[13]
Thus, our objective was to evaluate during the winter period the productive efficiency
of Pantaneira cows kept under grazing and supplemented with homeopathic products associated
with yeast, as well as the effects of each product individually.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted at the Nucleus for the Conservation of Pantaneira Breed
Cattle, belonging to the State University of Mato Grosso do Sul in Aquidauana, located
in the High Pantanal South Matogrossense, during the winter period from June to September
2022. The research was conducted according to ethical guidelines and received approval
from the Animal Ethics Committee (CEUA) of the State University of Mato Grosso do
Sul (UEMS), Aquidauana campus, under number 029/2022 ([Supplementary file 1], available in the online version). Climatological data collected during the experimental
period are described in [Table 1]. It is worth noting that winter temperatures in the Pantanal can be quite high for
this time of year, comparable to summer days in some European countries, such as Portugal,
Spain, Italy, Greece, and Croatia.
Table 1
Climatological data during the experimental period (from June to September), taken
at 21-day intervals
|
Variables[a]
|
Days 1–21
|
Days 22–42
|
Days 43–63
|
Days 64–84
|
Days 1–84
|
|
Min
|
Max
|
Min
|
Max
|
Min
|
Max
|
Min
|
Max
|
Average
|
|
T, °C
|
14.0
|
36.0
|
8.0
|
37.0
|
12.5
|
37.5
|
13.4
|
36.3
|
24.3
|
|
UR, %
|
15.0
|
90.0
|
20.0
|
100.0
|
17.0
|
91.0
|
20.0
|
100.0
|
56.6
|
|
P, mm
|
0.8
|
24.4
|
1.0
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.2
|
122.2
|
18.7
|
|
THI, %[b]
|
54.5
|
94.6
|
51.5
|
98.6
|
56.1
|
97.4
|
56.9
|
97.3
|
75.9
|
a Center for Weather and Climate Monitoring of Mato Grosso do Sul (CEMTEC), located
at UEMS, in Aquidauana, Mato Grosso do Sul.
b Temperature–humidity index, equation used and adapted from Thom EC (Weatherwise 1959;12:57–59):
THI = (0.8∗T + (UR%/100)∗(T − 14.4) + 46.4), where T = temperature (°C) and UR = relative humidity (%). P = rainfall.
A total of 60 cows of Pantaneira breed with an average body weight of 437.7 kg were
used. The cows were randomly assigned, through a drawing process, into four equal
groups and kept in a rotational grazing system on Mombaça grass (Megathyrsus maximus; [Table 2]) with a fixed stocking rate of 1 Animal Unit per hectare, corresponding to 450 kg
of body weight. A flow diagram consistent with CONSORT guidelines was developed to
detail the study design and treatment allocation ([Fig. 1]). The treatments analyzed were CTL: Control (protein–energy–mineral supplement,
without the inclusion of additives); HOM: Homeopathy (4 g/kg of Entero 100, 4 g/kg
of Figotonus, and 4 g/kg of Convert H), containing natural ingredients with hepatic
metabolic action, immune stimulation, anti-stress effects, and prevention against
intestinal disorders, as detailed in [Supplementary Table 1] (available in the online version), supplied by CMR Laboratórios Veterinários Ltda.
(CNPJ: 12.933.715/0001–86), Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul; YEA: Yeast (24 g/kg
of S. cerevisiae); and HY: homeopathy + yeast (4 g/kg of Entero 100, 4 g/kg of Figotonus, 4 g/kg of
Convert H + 24 g/kg of S. cerevisiae). The doses of homeopathic products and yeast were incorporated during the formulation
of the supplements, which were made available to the animals ad libitum, with continuous replenishment to ensure that the trough always remained full.
Table 2
Chemical composition of the dry matter of Mombaça grass[a] during the winter period, according to the treatments in the different grazing areas
allocated to each group
|
Variables
|
Treatments[b]
|
|
CTL
|
HOM
|
YEA
|
HY
|
|
Dry matter
|
25.56
|
25.77
|
27.43
|
28.07
|
|
Crude protein
|
9.08
|
8.51
|
8.70
|
8.32
|
|
Neutral detergent fiber
|
72.41
|
73.21
|
72.42
|
73.01
|
|
Acid detergent fiber
|
37.54
|
37.89
|
38.62
|
39.12
|
|
Cellulose
|
33.18
|
33.02
|
33.71
|
34.65
|
|
Hemicellulose
|
34.87
|
35.32
|
33.80
|
33.89
|
|
Lignin
|
4.36
|
4.87
|
4.92
|
4.46
|
|
Total carbohydrates
|
73.97
|
73.88
|
74.21
|
75.52
|
|
Non-fiber carbohydrates
|
11.89
|
11.48
|
12.15
|
12.61
|
|
Ether extract
|
2.08
|
1.91
|
1.81
|
1.97
|
|
Mineral matter
|
11.87
|
12.70
|
13.28
|
12.19
|
a Sample of consumed material, obtained through the simulated grazing technique.
b CTL, control (base diet); HOM, homeopathic (Entero 100, Figotonus, and Convert H);
YEA, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae); and HY, homeopathic + yeast.
Fig. 1 CONSORT 2010 flow diagram.
The nutritional composition of the mineral–protein–energy supplement is shown in [Supplementary Table 2] (available in the online version). The experimental period lasted 94 days, with
the first 10 days dedicated to adapting the animals' digestive tracts to the treatments
and grazing management, followed by four 21-day periods for data collection. The determination
of initial and residual forage biomass after grazing was performed by sampling grass
in a 2m2 area at respectively the entrance and exit of the animals from the paddock ([Table 3]). The grass was cut at ground level, and the entire collected content was weighed,
homogenized, and a sample of ∼500 g was taken to separate leaf, stem, and senescent
material fractions, followed by total dry matter (DM) determination.
Table 3
Dry matter production (DMP, kg/ha) of Mombaça grass, during the winter period, with
their respective fractions of leaf, stem and senescent material, expressed in dry
matter, at the entry and exit of cows in the paddocks according to the treatments
|
Variables
|
Treatments[a]
|
SEM[b]
|
p-Value[c]
|
|
CTL
|
HOM
|
YEA
|
HY
|
|
Entry
|
|
DMP, k/ha
|
3,948.5
|
4,269.3
|
4,161.4
|
4,068.0
|
458.00
|
0.96
|
|
Leaf, %
|
20.6
|
22.0
|
18.8
|
18.7
|
2.66
|
0.79
|
|
Stem, %
|
20.5
|
24.3
|
20.0
|
17.1
|
2.89
|
0.40
|
|
Senescent material, %
|
58.8
|
53.8
|
61.2
|
64.3
|
3.62
|
0.26
|
|
Exit
|
|
DMP, kg/ha
|
2,526.6
|
2,612.0
|
2,228.3
|
2,743.9
|
370.00
|
0.79
|
|
Leaf, %
|
15.5
|
17.8
|
13.1
|
14.2
|
2.66
|
0.62
|
|
Stem, %
|
22.4
|
24.6
|
27.9
|
21.7
|
3.12
|
0.51
|
|
Senescent material, %
|
62.1
|
57.5
|
59.1
|
64.1
|
5.03
|
0.79
|
a CTL, control (base diet); HOM, homeopathic (Entero 100, Figotonus, and Convert H);
YEA, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae); and HY, homeopathic + yeast.
b Standard error of the mean.
c Means per row compared by the F-test (p ≤ 0.05).
The animals were weighed in the morning after a 12-hour fast from solids and liquids
at the beginning of the trial and subsequently at 21-day intervals using a mechanical
scale with 1-kg precision. The weight gain of the animals was determined by the difference
between initial and final body weights, divided by the 21 days of each experimental
period. Feed conversion (FC) was calculated based on DM intake and weight gain of
the animal, according to the equation: FC = (DMI/ADG), where DMI = daily DM intake
(kg DM/day) and ADG = average daily gain (kg/day).
The intakes of mineral–protein–energy supplements were estimated by the group average,
determined by the difference between offered and residual material in the trough,
after respective weighings and DM corrections. Forage selected and ingested by the
animals was sampled using the simulated grazing technique. During these collections,
animals were followed within a distance of less than 2 m to observe grazing habits
and preference for structural components of the forage. Simultaneously and synchronized
with the animals, forage samples similar to what was being selected and consumed by
the animals were collected. Forage intake by the animals was determined using Neutral
Detergent Fiber Insoluble (NDFi) as an internal marker. For this, samples of feed
(forage and supplement) and animal feces (0.5 g of sample) were incubated in the rumen
of a fistulated bovine with a rumen cannula for 288 hours, following the method described
by Berchielli et al.[14]
Fecal production of the animals was determined by total feces collection over a 24-hour
period. On the same day, after weighing, aliquots of ∼50 g of feces were sampled directly
from the rectum of all animals for subsequent digestibility analyses.
Bromatological evaluation was determined according to the method described by the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists.[15] Forage, supplement and feces samples were pre-dried in a forced ventilation oven
at 65°C for 72 hours, then ground in a mill with a 1 mm sieve, followed by analysis
of DM, crude protein (CP), NDF, acid detergent fiber, hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin,
ether extract (EE), and ash (ASH).
Total carbohydrates (TCs) were estimated using the equation proposed by Sniffen et
al.[16] TC = {100–[CP (%DM) + EE (%DM) + ASH (%DM)]}, and non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFCs)
were calculated according to the equation proposed by Hall[17]: NFC = {100–[[CP (%DM) – %CP derived from urea + % of urea] + NDF (%DM) + EE (%DM) + ASH
(%DM)]}. Total digestible nutrients (TDNs) were calculated according to the National
Research Council[18] using the equation: %TDN = %CPd + (%EEd × 2.25) + %NFCd + %NDFd; where: CPd = Digestible
Crude Protein, EEd = Digestible Ether Extract, NFCd = Digestible Non-Fibrous Carbohydrates,
and NDFd = Digestible Neutral Detergent Fiber. Apparent nutrient digestibility (DNU)
was estimated by the equation: NDU(%) = [((DM intake × % Nutrient) – (DM excreted × %
Nutrient)/(DM intake × % Nutrient)) × 100].
The experimental design used for variable collection was completely randomized. Data
were analyzed using the R language.[19] All variables (dry matter production of Mombaça grass; consumption variables; digestibility;
and animal performance) were initially submitted to the Shapiro–Wilk test to check
the Normality of the residues. After the removal of outliers, variance heterogeneity
analysis was performed. Subsequently, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to
assess the differences between treatments, and means were compared using Tukey and
Duncan tests, considering a significance level of 5%.
Results
The intake of concentrates and forages respectively was significantly higher and lower
for the animals in the YEA and HY treatments (p ≤ 0.05), with no differences between the other treatments. No significant effect
on total intake, expressed in kg/day, was observed among the treatments, except for
the CTL and HY treatments. On the other hand, total intake, when expressed as a percentage
of body weight and metabolic weight, was higher in animals from the CTL treatment
compared with the others (p ≤ 0.05), suggesting a compensation related to the lower efficiency in diet utilization,
since the animals did not receive the additives that helped improve nutrient digestibility
and metabolism. Consequently, the intake of NDF was significantly lower in the animals
of the HY treatment group ([Table 4]). This lower NDF intake may be beneficial, as high levels of NDF in the diet are
associated with reduced digestibility and decreased nutrient utilization efficiency.
Table 4
Total dry matter intake (TDMI) expressed in kg/day, percentage of body weight (TDMI/BW),
and metabolic weight (TDMI/MW); supplement intake (SI); grass intake (GI); and neutral
detergent fiber (NDF) intake
|
Variables
|
Treatments[1]
|
SEM[2]
|
p-Value[3]
|
|
CTL
|
HOM
|
YEA
|
HY
|
|
TDMI, kg/day
|
10.59a
|
9.93ab
|
9.23bc
|
8.51c
|
0.31
|
0.01
|
|
SI, kg/day
|
0.171b
|
0.089b
|
0.218a
|
0.210a
|
0.02
|
0.04
|
|
GI, kg/day
|
10.42a
|
9.84a
|
8.88b
|
8.30b
|
0.31
|
0.01
|
|
TDMI/BW, %
|
2.56a
|
2.41b
|
2.23c
|
2.11d
|
0.0008
|
0.01
|
|
TDMI/MW, %
|
117.1a
|
108.2b
|
98.2c
|
94.1d
|
1.05
|
0.01
|
|
NDF intake, kg/day
|
7.63a
|
7.16ab
|
6.69bc
|
6.17c
|
0.23
|
0.01
|
1 CTL, control (base diet); HOM, homeopathic (Entero 100, Figotonus, and Convert H);
YEA, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae); and HY, homeopathic + yeast.
2 Standard error of the mean.
3 Means followed by different letters on the same line differ from each other according
to the Tukey and Duncan tests (p ≤ 0.05).
The digestibility of dry matter and the lipid fraction of the diet were significantly
higher in the animals of the HY treatment group (p ≤ 0.05), with no differences between the other treatments. The digestibility of protein
and NDFs and acid detergent fibers was greater in the animals of the HY treatment
group (p ≤ 0.05), followed by the YEA treatment group, with no statistically significant difference
between the CTL and HOM groups. The digestibility of TCs, NFCs, and ash was higher
for the YEA and HY treatment groups (p ≤ 0.05), with no differences between the other treatments. Regarding the levels of
total digestible nutrients and digestible energy, statistically significant differences
were observed in all treatments (p ≤ 0.05), with the highest values observed in the HY treatment, followed by the YEA,
CTL, and HOM treatments ([Table 5]).
Table 5
Digestibility coefficients in Pantaneira breed cows maintained under grazing regimen,
according to treatments
|
Variables[1]
|
Treatments[2]
|
SEM[3]
|
p-Value[4]
|
|
CTL
|
HOM
|
YEA
|
HY
|
|
DMd, %
|
50.55b
|
50.47b
|
51.58b
|
56.34a
|
0.52
|
0.01
|
|
CPd, %
|
68.18c
|
66.83c
|
70.60b
|
74.27a
|
0.32
|
0.01
|
|
NDFd, %
|
60.12c
|
58.65c
|
63.04b
|
64.76a
|
0.42
|
0.01
|
|
ADFd, %
|
45.57c
|
44.07c
|
47.49b
|
49.57a
|
0.52
|
0.01
|
|
TCd, %
|
55.91b
|
55.55b
|
57.48a
|
59.89a
|
0.43
|
0.01
|
|
NFCd, %
|
82.16b
|
80.98b
|
84.99a
|
86.52a
|
0.62
|
0.01
|
|
EEd, %
|
55.32b
|
52.97b
|
56.50b
|
60.41a
|
0.55
|
0.01
|
|
MMd, %
|
34.82b
|
33.58b
|
38.82a
|
41.83a
|
0.80
|
0.01
|
|
TDNs, %
[3]
|
59.79c
|
57.23d
|
61.59b
|
64.39a
|
0.40
|
0.01
|
|
DE, kcal/gDM
[5]
|
2.63c
|
2.52d
|
2.71b
|
2.83a
|
0.017
|
0.01
|
1 Digestibilities of: dry matter (DMd), crude protein (CPd), neutral detergent fiber
(NDFd), acid detergent fiber (ADFd), total carbohydrates (TCd), non-fiber carbohydrates
(NFCd), ether extract (EEd), and mineral matter (MMd).
2 CTL, control (base diet); HOM, homeopathic (Entero 100, Figotonus, and Convert H);
YEA, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae); and HY, homeopathic + yeast.
3 Standard error of the mean.
4 Means followed by different letters on the same line differ from each other according
to the Tukey and Duncan tests (p ≤ 0.05).
5 Total digestible nutrients (TDNs) and digestible energy (DE), estimated by the equation
DE = (%TDNs/100) * 4.409, according to the National Research Council, which established
standardized guidelines in 2001 for estimating the nutritional requirements of livestock.
There was no difference in final body weight among the treatments (p ≥ 0.05). However, a higher average daily weight gain and a lower FC ratio (p ≤ 0.05) were observed in the animals of the HY treatment group compared with the
CTL group, with no differences between CTL and the HOM and YEA treatments, and between
these and the HY treatment group ([Table 6]). The higher digestibilities in the HY treatment indicate better nutrient utilization,
which directly reflects in greater weight gain and better feed conversion. The lower
the feed conversion ratio, the better the animal's efficiency in converting the consumed
food into body weight, meaning that the animals in the HY treatment group needed to
consume less food to achieve greater weight gain.
Table 6
Initial (PCI) and final (PCF) body weights; average daily weight gain (ADG); and feed
conversion (FC) in Pantaneira breed cows maintained under grazing regimen, according
to treatments
|
Variables
|
Treatments[1]
|
SEM[2]
|
p-Value[3]
|
|
CTL
|
HOM
|
YEA
|
HY
|
|
PCI, kg
|
431.5
|
439.9
|
442.3
|
437.1
|
32.7
|
0.99
|
|
PCF, kg
|
458.7
|
468.7
|
472.7
|
474.8
|
34.8
|
0.98
|
|
ADG, kg/day
|
0.324b
|
0.343ab
|
0.362ab
|
0.449a
|
0.07
|
0.04
|
|
FC
|
32.69a
|
28.95ab
|
25.50ab
|
18.95b
|
0.52
|
0.01
|
1 CTL, control (base diet); HOM, homeopathic (Entero 100, Figotonus, and Convert H);
YEA, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae); and HY, homeopathic + yeast.
2 Standard error of the mean.
3 Means followed by different letters on the same line differ from each other according
to the Tukey and Duncan tests (p ≤ 0.05).
Discussion
In livestock production systems that utilize rotational grazing, the high biomass
production and quality of the forage are crucial for adequate animal performance.[20] In this study, it was observed that Mombaça grass, both quantitatively and qualitatively,
was adequate and in superior physiological condition than expected for the winter
period, with average productions of 4,111.80 kg/DM/ha and 8.7% crude protein surpassing
the value of 3,866 kg/DM/ha found by Araújo et al.[21] These favorable results could be a reflection of the atypical climate in 2022, influenced
by “La Niña”, characterized by high precipitation and elevated temperatures,[22] as well as the appropriate management practices employed in the experimental paddocks,
where the control of entry and exit heights stimulates regrowth without affecting
organic reserves.[23]
According to Oliveira et al,[24] in addition to influencing forage production, the climate also affects the thermal
comfort of animals, especially those in grazing systems, as they are more susceptible
to environmental factors such as temperature and humidity, which can negatively impact
their behavior and productive performance. Thermal stress can occur when the temperature
deviates from the thermal comfort zone. Armstrong[25] categorized the temperature–humidity index (THI), where values between 72 and 78
are considered mild stress, 79 to 88 moderate stress, and 89 to 98 severe stress.
According to Berman et al,[26] relative humidity affects an animal's heat loss capacity: when close to 72%, cattle
tend to lose 20% of their evaporative and respiratory efficiency, reducing dry matter
intake by 3 to 10% to maintain homeothermy.
Although the animals in this study experienced mild stress with an average THI of
75.9%, there was no adverse effect on dry matter intake, which remained adequate for
grazing animals, with averages of 2.5, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.1% of body weight for the CTL,
HOM, YEA, and HY treatment groups respectively. These results can be attributed to
the breed used. According to De Melo Costa et al,[27] cattle adapted to tropical regions, such as the Pantaneira breed, exhibit thin coats
that allow for evaporative cooling of the skin, resulting in a small thermal gradient
between the hair and skin surface, giving them greater resistance to environmental
conditions. This adaptability was supported by a genomic analysis conducted by Peripolli
et al,[28] which identified genes associated with resistance to adverse environments.
Despite the adequate dry matter intake in all treatments, it was observed that the
animals in the CTL and HOM treatment groups had lower intake of the mineral–protein–energy
supplement, averaging 171 and 89 g/animal/day respectively. These results are similar
to those found by Lima et al.[29] when providing cattle with homeopathic products associated with concentrates in
grazing conditions. The lower intake of the mineral–protein–energy supplement in the
CTL and HOM treatment groups is related to the higher total dry matter and forage
intakes of these animals. The CTL animals had total dry matter intakes, expressed
in kg/animal/day and as a percentage of body weight, of 10.59 and 2.5 respectively.
A similar result was found in a study conducted by Da Silva et al,[30] with values of 9.81 kg/animal/day and 1.95%, indicating no metabolic challenge or
stress in the animals. It is important to highlight that the Pantaneira cows in the
HOM treatment group did not exhibit the expected effects of the product, as its action
occurs directly in the liver. The low intake of the supplement was insufficient for
the homeopathic substances to reach the liver, their primary site of action, which
may have prevented the effects on the animals' performance in this treatment.
On the other hand, the lower total dry matter and forage intakes in the HY and YEA
treatment groups are related to the higher digestibility of the diet in these treatments.
The increased digestibility, especially of fibrous fractions, may be associated with
the potential of yeast (S. cerevisiae) to induce the “fibrolytic effect” in the diet. This effect can occur in two distinct
ways, either physical or enzymatic, or a combination of both, as reported by Hess
et al.[31]
In the physical fibrolytic effect, yeasts adhere to the forage surface and germinate,
forming structures called appressoria. During this formation, the hyphae branch out,
creating a complex network that stabilizes and attaches the appressoria to the forage.
This adherence ensures direct contact of the yeast with the forage, facilitating the
breaking of the fibrous surface through physical force.[32] The enzymatic fibrolytic effect occurs through the release of carbohydrate-active
enzymes (CAZymes) by yeasts, which can form highly organized multi-enzyme complexes
called cellulosomes.[12]
CAZymes are a diverse set of enzymes that degrade structural carbohydrates such as
cellulose, hemicellulose and pectin, acting independently on different types of polysaccharides.[33] The cellulosome, on the other hand, is a highly organized macromolecular enzyme
complex specialized in cellulose degradation, composed of multiple cellulolytic enzymes
linked to a protein scaffold, allowing synergistic enzyme action and making it more
efficient in cellulose degradation, thereby providing a greater amount of nutrients.[10] This increased nutrient availability was observed in the treatments containing yeast,
HY and YEA, reflected in higher concentrations of total digestible nutrients and digestible
energy. This result was achieved not only through the fibrolytic effect but also through
probable ruminal and intestinal modulation.
Yeast can adhere to epithelial cells to compete with epiphytic microbial populations
for substrates that become more accessible after fibrolytic degradation.[34] During its adhesion, yeast provides growth factors such as organic acids, vitamins,
and amino acids, stimulating the growth of ruminal bacterial populations,[35] increasing the flow of microbial protein to the intestine, and reducing nitrogen
losses.[36] Additionally, yeasts and their metabolites can regulate the expression of binding
proteins present in the cell membrane of the intestinal barrier, which has selective
permeability characteristics, favoring intestinal health and nutrient absorption.[37]
Therefore, the association of yeast with the homeopathic product in the HY treatment
group may have caused an interaction between the components of the homeopathic product
and the yeast, resulting in synergy. The homeopathic product may have provided bioactive
compounds that stimulated or facilitated the yeast's metabolic processes, leading
to increased production of desirable metabolites. This directly reflected the superior
results of dry matter and nutrient digestibilities observed under HY treatment.
Scientific knowledge about the effects of homeopathic products on animal physiology
is still limited. However, according to Gemelli and Pereira,[4] homeopathic products can influence the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, where
their energetic information is recognized or captured by nerve endings in the oral
mucosa and digestive tract. Once captured, this energetic information is transmitted
to the central nervous system, triggering corrective or stimulating responses that
can result in greater production efficiency. This information justifies the results
obtained in this research, where the HY treatment showed similarity in the variables
of weight gain and feed conversion with the HOM and YEA treatments. The similarity
between the treatments containing homeopathic products, HY and HOM, and the YEA treatment
may have occurred due to the high concentrations of total digestible nutrients and
digestible energy observed.
Moreover, the effect of yeast supplementation on weight gain has already been reported
in a study conducted by Kraimi et al.,[38] where it was observed that the supplementation of steers with S. cerevisiae improved average daily gain and feed conversion during the receiving period. Notably,
the HY treatment resulted in the highest weight gain compared with the CTL treatment,
even with the lowest dry matter intake. This result suggests that the addition of
additives was effective in improving the feed conversion of the cows compared with
those that did not receive the homeopathic product and yeast, highlighting the efficiency
in nutrient utilization and reflecting the synergistic efficacy of the combination
of additives.
In conclusion, the combination of yeast (S. cerevisiae) with homeopathic products improved the digestibility of the diet and provided cows
of Pantaneira breed with better utilization of the fibrous components of Mombaça grass
during the winter season, greater body weight gain, and better feed conversion.
Highlights
-
Supplementation with yeast and homeopathic products increased diet digestibility and
feed conversion in Pantaneira cows.
-
Pantaneira cows treated with the combination of homeopathy and yeast showed higher
daily weight gain.
-
The fibrolytic effect of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae improved the utilization of fibrous forage components during the winter period.
-
The combination of yeast and homeopathy resulted in a synergy that promoted better
animal performance outcomes.
-
The Pantaneira breed proved to be well adapted to the environmental conditions of
the Pantanal, maintaining adequate dry matter intake even under moderate thermal stress.
