Performance of Pantaneira Breed Cows on Pasture Supplemented with Homeopathic Additives and Yeast

Abstract

Context

To improve the nutritional efficiency of ruminants and promote well-being in a natural and effective manner, the use of additives such as homeopathic products and yeast has been increasingly incorporated into diets, especially in grazing systems.

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of homeopathic products and yeast on the performance of Pantaneira cows maintained in rotational grazing on Mombaça grass in the Pantanal, Brazil.

Methods

Sixty cows were assigned to a completely randomized design with four treatments and 15 replicates. The treatments were: CTL: control (without additives); HOM: homeopathic (4 g/kg Entero 100, 4 g/kg Figotonus, and 4 g/kg Convert H); YEA: yeast (24 g/kg Saccharomyces cerevisiae); and HY: homeopathic + yeast (4 g/kg Entero 100, 4 g/kg Figotonus, 4 g/kg Convert H + 24 g/kg S. cerevisiae). The variables measured included forage and supplement intake, diet digestibility, weight gain, and feed conversion. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey and Duncan tests, with a significance level set at 5%.

Key Results

Cows in the HY treatment group showed higher average daily gains and better feed conversion compared to the CTL treatment (p ≤ 0.05). They exhibited higher digestibility of dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, and ether extract, as well as higher levels of total digestible nutrients and digestible energy (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusions

The inclusion of 4 g/kg Entero 100, 4 g/kg Figotonus, 4 g/kg Convert H, and 24 g/kg S. cerevisiae improved nutrient digestibility, body weight gain and feed conversion in Pantaneira cows.

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.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None declared.

Acknowledgements

This work was performed with the support of the Universidade Estadual do Mato Grosso do Sul (UEMS), Aquidauana Unit, and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), Brazil, under grant number 88887.674478/2022–00. The authors also thank Real H Nutrition Ltda., Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, for their encouragement in carrying out this study.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because it is unpublished original research. However, they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Leandra da Silva Florentino, Mariana Santos, and Daniele Portela de Oliveira Torgan. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Leandra da Silva Florentino, Marcus Vinícius Morais de Oliveira, Evellyn Richelly Ferreira da Silva, Dalton Mendes de Oliveira, Dirce Ferreira Luz, and Fernando Miranda de Vargas Júnior, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

• References

• 1 MAPA - Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Mapa fortalece agropecuária pantaneira, 2023. Accessed April 15, 2024 at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/mapa-fortalece-agropecuaria-pantaneira
• 2 Gomes LSP, Braz TGS, Mourthé MHF. et al. Níveis de substituição de ureia por esterco bovino na adubação de capim-marandu. Soc Ciências Agrária Portugual 2018; 41: 914-923
• 3 Carvalho EF, Nascimento VA, Dias M, Dias FJS. Óleos funcionais como aditivos na dieta de bovinos de corte. Encicl Biosf 2023; 20: 129-144
• 4 Gemelli JL, Pereira ASC. Princípios e utilizações da homeopatia em bovinos de corte: Uma revisão. Rev Bras Hig Sanid Anim 2018; 12: 327-341
• 5 Braccini GL, Casetta J, Silva SCC, Carniatto CHO, Santos VDR, Fiorillo CV. Aplicação da homeopatia na produção animal. Rev Valore 2019; 4: 310-323
• 6 Guturu A, Nadgauda S, Rajopadhye BD. Antimicrobial activity of homoepathic medicine silicea terra: a narrative review. JNAO 2023; 14: 176-182
• 7 Pasalkar AD, Kathade SA, Jadhav AB, Kunchiraman BN, Shinde CH. Study the anti-bacterial activity of homoeopathic medicines against Staphylococcus epidermidis in-vitro . Int J Health Sci Res 2019; 9: 49-53
• 8 Arsène MMJ, Davares AKL, Andreevna SL. et al. The use of probiotics in animal feeding for safe production and as potential alternatives to antibiotics. Vet World 2021; 14: 319-328
• 9 Chaves BD, Brashears MM, Nightingale KK. Applications and safety considerations of Lactobacillus salivarius as a probiotic in animal and human health. J Appl Microbiol 2017; 123: 18-28
• 10 Artzi L, Bayer EA, Moraïs S. Cellulosomes: bacterial nanomachines for dismantling plant polysaccharides. Nat Rev Microbiol 2017; 15: 83-95
• 11 Dario Rafael OH, Luis Fernándo ZG, Abraham PT, Pedro Alberto VL, Guadalupe G-S, Pablo PJ. Production of chitosan-oligosaccharides by the chitin-hydrolytic system of Trichoderma harzianum and their antimicrobial and anticancer effects. Carbohydr Res 2019; 486: 107836
• 12 Duarte I, Huynen MA. Contribution of lateral gene transfer to the evolution of the eukaryotic fungus Piromyces sp. E2: massive bacterial transfer of genes involved in carbohydrate metabolism. bioRχiv 2019; 514042: 1-18
• 13 Mazza MCM, Mazza CA, Sereno JRB, Santos SAL, Mariante AS. Conservation of pantaneiro cattle in Brazil. Historical origin. Arch Zootec 1992; 41: 443-453
• 14 Berchielli TT, Andrade P, Furlan CL. Avaliação de indicadores internos em ensaios de digestibilidade. Rev Bras Zootec 2000; 29: 830-833
• 15 AOAC – Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 15 ed.. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1990
• 16 Sniffen CJ, O'Connor JD, Van Soest PJ, Fox DG, Russell JB. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J Anim Sci 1992; 70: 3562-3577
• 17 Hall MB. Neutral Detergent-Soluble Carbohydrates: Nutritional Relevance and Analysis—A Laboratory Manual. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 2000
• 18 NRC - National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th ed.. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2021
• 19 R Foundation. The R Project for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2019. Accessed April 17, 2024 at: https://www.R-project.org/
• 20 Moorby JM, Fraser MD. Review: New feeds and new feeding systems in intensive and semi-intensive forage-fed ruminant livestock systems. Animal 2021; 15: 100297
• 21 Araújo IMM, Difante GS, Euclides VPB, Montagner DB, Gomes RC. Animal performance with and without supplements in Mombaça Guinea grass pastures during dry season. J Agric Sci 2017; 9: 145-154
• 22 INMET - Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. 2022. Accessed April 13, 2024 at: https://portal.inmet.gov.br/
• 23 Kulik M, Tajchman K, Lipiec A. et al. The impact of rotational pasture management for farm-bred fallow deer (Dama dama) on fodder quality in the context of animal welfare. Agronomy (Basel) 2023; 13: 1155
• 24 Oliveira CC, Alves FV, De Almeida RG, Gamarra EL, Villela SDJ, Martins PGMDA. Thermal comfort indices assessed in integrated production systems in the Brazilian savannah. Agrofor Syst 2019; 92: 1659-1672
• 25 Armstrong DV. Heat stress interaction with shade and cooling. J Dairy Sci 1994; 77: 2044-2050
• 26 Berman A, Horovitz T, Kaim M, Gacitua H. A comparison of THI indices leads to a sensible heat-based heat stress index for shaded cattle that aligns temperature and humidity stress. Int J Biometeorol 2016; 60: 1453-1462
• 27 de Melo Costa CC, Maia ASC, Nascimento ST, Nascimento CCN, Neto MC, de França Carvalho Fonsêca V. Thermal balance of Nellore cattle. Int J Biometeorol 2018; 62: 723-731
• 28 Peripolli E, Stafuzza NB, Machado MA. et al. Assessment of copy number variants in three Brazilian locally adapted cattle breeds using whole-genome re-sequencing data. Anim Genet 2023; 54: 254-270
• 29 Lima JAC, Fernandes HJ, Silva AG, Rosa EP, Falcão YS. Homeopathic additives and virginiamycin® in grazing beef cattle. Rev Cienc Agron 2020; 51: 2018-2026
• 30 da Silva ERF, de Oliveira MVM, Simões ARP. et al. Performance of Pantaneira breed cows in precision grazing system. Trop Anim Health Prod 2023; 55: 152
• 31 Hess M, Paul SS, Puniya AK. et al. Anaerobic fungi: past, present, and future. Front Microbiol 2020; 11: 584893
• 32 Ryder LS, Cruz-Mireles N, Molinari C, Eisermann I, Eseola AB, Talbot NJ. The appressorium at a glance. J Cell Sci 2022; 135: jcs259857
• 33 Seppälä S, Wilken SE, Knop D, Solomon KV, O'Malley MA. The importance of obtaining enzymes from unconventional fungi for metabolic engineering and biomass degradation. Metab Eng 2017; 44: 45-59
• 34 Hartinger T, Gresner N, Südekum KH. Does intra-ruminal nitrogen recycling waste valuable resources? A review of major players and their manipulation. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2018; 9: 33
• 35 Amin AB, Mao S. Influence of yeast on rumen fermentation, growth performance and quality of products in ruminants: a review. Anim Nutr 2021; 7: 31-41
• 36 Dias ALG, Freitas JA, Micai B, Azevedo RA, Greco LF, Santos JEP. Effect of supplemental yeast culture and dietary starch content on rumen fermentation and digestion in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2018; 101: 201-221
• 37 Zhao L, Xie Q, Etareri Evivie S. et al. Bifidobacterium dentium N8 with potential probiotic characteristics prevents LPS-induced intestinal barrier injury by alleviating the inflammatory response and regulating the tight junction in Caco-2 cell monolayers. Food Funct 2021; 12: 7171-7184
• 38 Kraimi N, Dawkins M, Gebhardt-Henrich SG. et al. Influence of the microbiota-gut-brain axis on behavior and welfare in farm animals: a review. Physiol Behav 2019; 210: 112658

Publication History

Received: 29 August 2024

Accepted: 28 October 2024

Article published online:
17 March 2025