| Literature DB >> 35116016 |
Ling Li1, Xiaohong Sun1, Junyi Luo1, Ting Chen1, Qianyun Xi1, Yongliang Zhang1, Jiajie Sun1.
Abstract
Herbal tea residue (HTR) contains various medicinal and nutritional components and is a potential high-quality unconventional source of roughage. In this study, a total of 30 healthy Simmental crossbred finishing steers were equally divided into two groups: CN (fed with a basic diet) and RE (HTR partly replaced Pennisetum purpureum). HTR did not alter the growth performance of steers but increased the net meat rate, tenderness, and water-holding capacity and increased the moisture content and oleic acid and linoleic acid concentrations in longissimus dorsi. It altered muscle metabolic pathways and improved rumen fermentation by increasing the propionic acid concentration and propionic acid-to-acetic acid ratio. We studied the steers' rumen microbial community composition and determined their correlation with the tested parameters. Certain rumen microorganisms were closely associated with muscle glucolipid metabolites and rumen NH3-N and volatile fatty acid levels. Our findings suggest that, as a functional roughage source, HTR improved to a certain extent the meat quality of steers by altering the rumen microbial composition and affecting the rumen fatty acid composition and muscle glucolipid metabolism.Entities:
Keywords: beef; feed resources; herbal tea residue; microbial diversity; muscle metabolism
Year: 2022 PMID: 35116016 PMCID: PMC8804378 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.821293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Basic diet composition and nutrient level of finishing steers.
| Item | CN | RE |
|
| ||
| Corn (%) | 23.7 | 23.7 |
| Bean curd residue (%) | 15.0 | 15.0 |
| Pennisetum purpureum (%) | 60.0 | 10.0 |
| Herbal tea residue (%) | 0 | 50.0 |
| Premix (%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Salt (%) | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Total (%) | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||
| Dry matter (%) | 34.6 | 30.7 |
| Crude protein (%) | 9.14 | 9.70 |
| r Crude fat (%) | 2.05 | 3.00 |
| Neutral detergent fiber (%) | 71.2 | 68.9 |
| Acid detergent fiber (%) | 25.2 | 27.6 |
| Calcium (%) | 0.69 | 0.63 |
| Phosphorus (%) | 0.22 | 0.30 |
| Net energy (MJ/kg) | 5.56 | 5.36 |
The indicators were calculated on the basis of dry matter. The nutrient contents of the premix were as follows: Zinc, 70–100 mg/kg; Iron, 50–70 mg/kg; Copper, 30–45 mg/kg; Manganese, 6.25–10 mg/kg; Selenium, 0.3–0.5 mg/kg; Iodine, 0.2–1.00 mg/kg; Vitamin A, 7,000–10,000 IU/kg; Vitamin D, 40,000–90,000 IU/kg; Vitamin E, 4,000–5,000 mg/kg. Net energy was a calculated value, and others were measured values. CN, no herbal tea residues; RE, 50% HTRs replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
Effects of herbal tea residue feed on the growth performance and carcass characteristics of finishing steers.
| Parameter | CN | RE | |
| Initial weight (kg) | 479.87 ± 10.99 | 482.53 ± 6.95 | 0.24 |
| Live weight at slaughter (kg) | 542.91 ± 11.68 | 547.09 ± 7.56 | 0.28 |
| Average daily feed intake (kg) | 12.64 ± 0.30 | 12.33 ± 0.28 | 0.79 |
| Average daily gain (kg) | 1.05 ± 0.04 | 1.08 ± 0.05 | 0.72 |
| Carcass weight (kg) | 307.58 ± 18.02 | 319.01 ± 16.53 | 0.65 |
| Dressing percentage (%) | 56.54 ± 0.90 | 57.26 ± 0.46 | 0.49 |
| Net meat weight (kg) | 257.58 ± 18.02 | 267.58 ± 15.71 | 0.68 |
| Net meat percentage (%) | 40.28 ± 0.38 | 41.72 ± 0.48 | 0.04 |
| Eye muscle area (cm2) | 78.82 ± 5.03 | 81.70 ± 6.09 | 0.72 |
The values were calculated as the mean ± standard error of the mean (N = 15). P < 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups; P > 0.05 indicated no significant difference between the two groups. CN, no herbal tea residues; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
Effects of herbal tea residue feed on the meat quality of finishing steers.
| Parameter | CN | RE | |
| Drip loss (%) | 5.85 ± 0.304 | 4.45 ± 0.233 | 0.001 |
| Cooking loss (%) | 29.96 ± 0.752 | 27.58 ± 0.443 | 0.006 |
| Shear force (N) | 65.26 ± 3.404 | 48.13 ± 2.314 | 0.001 |
| Meat color | |||
| Lightness (L*) | 34.96 ± 0.662 | 36.91 ± 0.55 | 0.032 |
| Redness (a*) | 18.91 ± 0.723 | 18.68 ± 0.753 | 0.823 |
| Yellowness (b*) | 9.50 ± 0.534 | 9.85 ± 0.452 | 0.624 |
The values were calculated as the mean ± standard error of the mean (N = 15). The shear force was calculated as the average of nine replicates per sample. P < 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups; P > 0.05 indicated no significant difference between the two groups. CN, no herbal tea residue; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
Effects of herbal tea residue feed on the basic nutritional composition of beef.
| Parameter | CN | RE | |
| Moisture (%) | 3.30 ± 0.18 | 4.69 ± 0.16 | 0.002 |
| Crude protein (%) | 86.19 ± 1.38 | 88.04 ± 1.08 | 0.33 |
| Crude fat (%) | 0.43 ± 0.003 | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.53 |
| Crude ash (%) | 0.044 ± 0.001 | 0.038 ± 0.002 | 0.04 |
The indicators were calculated on the basis of lyophilized samples. The values were calculated as the mean ± standard error of the mean (N = 15). P < 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups; P > 0.05 indicated no significant difference between the two groups. CN, no herbal tea residue; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
Effects of herbal tea residue feed on the fatty acid content of beef (g/100 g).
| Fatty acid | CN | RE | |
| Decanoic acid (C10:0) | 0.07 ± 0.007 | 0.06 ± 0.007 | 0.289 |
| Lauric acid (C12:0) | 0.10 ± 0.013 | 0.08 ± 0.005 | 0.343 |
| Myristic acid (C14:0) | 2.63 ± 0.146 | 2.41 ± 0.150 | 0.332 |
| Myristoleic acid (C14:1) | 0.44 ± 0.052 | 0.66 ± 0.108 | 0.061 |
| Pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) | 0.45 ± 0.036 | 0.46 ± 0.052 | 0.830 |
| Palmitic acid (C16:0) | 26.70 ± 0.453 | 25.57 ± 0.516 | 0.123 |
| Palmitoleic acid (C16:1) | 3.44 ± 0.141 | 3.39 ± 0.249 | 0.851 |
| Heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) | 0.97 ± 0.061 | 1.21 ± 0.130 | 0.106 |
| 10-Heptadecenoic acid (C17:1) | 0.65 ± 0.057 | 0.69 ± 0.034 | 0.566 |
| Stearic acid (C18:0) | 18.18 ± 0.597 | 17.59 ± 0.651 | 0.513 |
| Oleic acid (C18:1n9c) | 37.345 ± 0.536 | 39.74 ± 0.855 | 0.036 |
| Linoleic acid (C18:2n6t) | 0.11 ± 0.010 | 0.18 ± 0.031 | 0.050 |
| Methyl linoleate (C18:2n6c) | 4.27 ± 0.406 | 4.50 ± 0.618 | 0.772 |
| α-Linolenic acid (C18:3n3) | 0.40 ± 0.050 | 0.43 ± 0.034 | 0.577 |
| Arachidic acid (C20:0) | 0.15 ± 0.016 | 0.15 ± 0.008 | 0.817 |
| 11,14,17-Eicosatrienoic acid (C20:3n3) | 0.59 ± 0.266 | 0.53 ± 0.182 | 0.840 |
| Methyl arachidonic acid (C20:4n6) | 1.55 ± 0.329 | 2.20 ± 0.794 | 0.454 |
| Eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5n3) | 0.24 ± 0.068 | 0.25 ± 0.074 | 0.899 |
| Heneicosanoic acid-methyl ester (C21:0) | 0.24 ± 0.062 | 0.21 ± 0.038 | 0.696 |
| Docosanoic acid (C22:0) | 0.06 ± 0.012 | 0.05 ± 0.020 | 0.520 |
| Methyl cis-13,16-docosadienoic acid (C22:2) | 0.13 ± 0.032 | 0.14 ± 0.023 | 0.896 |
| Nervonic acid (C24:1) | 0.21 ± 0.030 | 0.21 ± 0.055 | 0.999 |
| Saturated fatty acid (SFA) | 49.57 ± 0.439 | 48.95 ± 0.632 | 0.437 |
| Unsaturated fatty acid (UFA) | 50.24 ± 0.461 | 51.07 ± 0.738 | 0.359 |
| Omega-6 (ω-6) | 7.07 ± 1.145 | 6.64 ± 1.373 | 0.811 |
| Omega-3 (ω-3) | 1.18 ± 0.360 | 1.27 ± 0.302 | 0.846 |
| ω-6: ω-3 | 6.98 ± 0.358 | 5.99 ± 0.334 | 0.060 |
The values were calculated as the mean ± standard error of the mean (N = 15). P < 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups; P > 0.05 indicated no significant difference between the two groups. CN, no herbal tea residue; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
FIGURE 1Differential metabolite annotation statistics in the KEGG database in the positive ion mode (A) and the negative ion mode (B). The X-axis represents the number of metabolites, and the y-axis represents the KEGG term.
FIGURE 2Volcanic map of differential metabolites (positive ion mode on the left and negative ion mode on the right). The X-axis represents the expression multiple change (log2FoldChange) of metabolites in different groups; and the Y-axis represents the significance level of difference (–log10p-value). Each point in the volcanic map represents a metabolite; the significantly upregulated metabolites are represented by red dots, whereas the significantly downregulated metabolites are represented by green dots.
Effects of herbal tea residue feed on the rumen fermentation parameters of finishing steers.
| Metabolite | CN | RE | |
| Ammonia-N (mg/100 mL) | 8.80 ± 1.053 | 11.43 ± 2.435 | 0.396 |
| Acetic acid (mmol/L) | 35.88 ± 2.660 | 30.58 ± 3.385 | 0.233 |
| Propionic acid (mmol/L) | 8.40 ± 0.343 | 10.38 ± 0.659 | 0.019 |
| Isobutyric acid (mmol/L) | 0.69 ± 0.109 | 0.59 ± 0.085 | 0.457 |
| Butyric acid (mmol/L) | 3.89 ± 0.299 | 3.92 ± 0.436 | 0.956 |
| Isovaleric acid (mmol/L) | 0.74 ± 0.145 | 0.64 ± 0.075 | 0.512 |
| Valeric acid (mmol/L) | 0.24 ± 0.043 | 0.19 ± 0.022 | 0.325 |
| Propionic acid/Acetic acid | 0.22 ± 0.007 | 0.24 ± 0.006 | 0.023 |
The values were calculated as the mean ± standard error of the mean (N = 15). P < 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups; P > 0.05 indicated no significant difference between the two groups. CN, no herbal tea residue; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
FIGURE 3Venn diagram representing the shared and exclusive OTUs at the 97% similarity level between rumen microbiota in the two groups (A). Bar plot shows the relative abundance of rumen microbiota at the phylum level in each group (B) and in each sample (C). OTUs, operational taxonomic units; CN, no herbal tea residue (control); RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
Effects of herbal tea residue feed on the alpha diversity indices for bacteria in the ruminal samples of finishing steers.
| Items | CN | RE | |
| Observed species | 1179.60 ± 50.59 | 1100.47 ± 56.37 | 0.305 |
| Shannon | 6.81 ± 0.28 | 6.61 ± 0.28 | 0.634 |
| Simpson | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.947 |
| Chao1 | 1447.77 ± 110.81 | 1332.69 ± 68.89 | 0.385 |
| ACE | 1426.82 ± 61.86 | 1353.86 ± 64.65 | 0.422 |
| Good’s coverage | 0.99 ± 0.00 | 0.99 ± 0.00 | 0.711 |
| PD whole tree | 88.93 ± 3.96 | 87.41 ± 2.90 | 0.759 |
The values were calculated as the mean ± standard error of the mean (N = 15). P < 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups, and P > 0.05 indicated no significant difference between the two groups. CN, no herbal tea residue; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
FIGURE 4(A) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMDS). (B) Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic means (UPGMA) cluster tree based on binary Jaccard distance. (A) The PCoA was based on the unweighted UniFrac distance, and the NMDS analysis was based on the Bray–Curtis distance. Each point in the figure represents a sample, and the samples in the same group are represented by the same color. (B) On the left is the UPGMA cluster tree structure of each sample at the OUT level, and on the right is the relative abundance distribution map of each sample at the phylum level. CN, no herbal tea residues; RE, 50% HTR replaced Pennisetum purpureum.
FIGURE 5Comparison of the classification of rumen microbiota between two groups by linear discriminant analysis effect size (LefSe) method. The LDA value distribution histogram (left) shows the species with significant differences in abundance in the two groups, and the length of the histogram represents the impact of different species. In the taxonomic cladogram (right), the circles radiating from the inside to the outside represent the classification level from phylum to species. Taxa with enriched levels in CN are shown in red, whereas those with enriched levels in RE are shown in green. The species names indicated by the letters in the picture are shown in the legend on the right.
FIGURE 6Correlation analysis of rumen microorganisms with beef glycolipid metabolite concentrations. Each cell contains the corresponding correlation and P-value. The table is color-coded by correlation according to the color legend. AMP, adenosine monophosphate; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; DPA, docosapentaenoic acid; G6P, glucose-6-phosphate.