| Literature DB >> 35158629 |
Diky Ramdani1, Anuraga Jayanegara2, Abdul Shakoor Chaudhry3.
Abstract
Black (BTL) or green (GTL) tea and their spent tea (STL) leaves can be used as natural dietary additives for ruminants. Experiment 1 used a 3 × 2 × 2 factorial arrangement, with four replicates (n = 4) to test the effects of three different inclusions of tea leaves at 0 (control), 50, and 100 g/kg DM of two different tea types (BTL and GTL) in two different total mixed diets containing either ryegrass hay (RH) or rice straw (RS) on in vitro rumen organic matter degradability (IVOMD), volatile fatty acids (VFA), pH, ammonia (NH3), and methane (CH4) outputs over a 24 h incubation time. Experiment 2 followed a 3 × 2 × 2 factorial arrangement, with eight replicates (n = 8) to study the impacts of three different STL inclusions at 0, 100, and 200 g/kg DM of two different STL types (black and green) into two different total mixed diets containing either RH or RS on the same in vitro measurements. Both types of tea leaves decreased NH3 (p < 0.001) and CH4 (p < 0.01) without affecting (p > 0.05) rumen degradability, but the effect of their STL was less remarkable. Tea leaves and their STL inclusions improved (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively) the acetate to propionate (A:P) ratio. Compared with BTL, GTL containing diets had higher IVOMD (p < 0.05) and A:P ratio (p < 0.05) but lower NH3 (p < 0.001). Reduced rumen NH3 and CH4 outputs can be useful for protein and energy use efficiency while an increased A:P ratio might lead to increased milk fat synthesis and reduced low-fat milk syndrome. The surplus or wasted tea leaf products could be used as sustainable sources of nutrients to optimize rumen function and minimize environmental impacts of feeding ruminant animals.Entities:
Keywords: black tea; dietary additives; green tea; ruminants; spent tea leaves
Year: 2022 PMID: 35158629 PMCID: PMC8833588 DOI: 10.3390/ani12030305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Ingredient compositions (g/kg DM) of the RH- or RS-based experimental diets containing either original tea leaves (BTL, GTL) for the first experiment and their STL (SBTL, SGTL, CSBTL, CSGTL) for the second experiment.
| Tea Leaf Products | RH or RS | CON |
|---|---|---|
| BTL or GTL | ||
| 0 | 300 | 700 |
| 50 | 250 | 700 |
| 100 | 200 | 700 |
| STL | ||
| 0 | 300 | 700 |
| 100 | 200 | 700 |
| 200 | 100 | 700 |
BTL, black tea leaves; GTL, green tea leaves; STL, spent tea leaves; SBTL, spent BTL; SGTL, spent GTL; CSBTL, company SBTL; CSGTL, company SGTL; RH, ryegrass hay; RS, rice straw; CON, ruminant concentrate mix.
Mean (n = 3) chemical composition (g/kg DM except DM = g DM/kg and ME = MJ/kg DM) of ingredients of the experimental diets with SEM and significance.
| Ingredients | DM | OM | Ash | CP | EE | ME | NDFom | ADFom | ADLom | TP | TT | TS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTL | 942 a | 939 c | 61.4 d | 242 b | 12.6 de | 6.40 c | 323 f | 309 ef | 27.4 d | 151 b | 133 b | 86.1 b |
| GTL | 937 a | 938 c | 61.8 d | 240 b | 20.8 b | 7.08 bc | 254 g | 211 g | 37.6 d | 231 a | 204 a | 276 a |
| SBTL | 126 f | 961 a | 38.7 f | 234 b | 13.5 cd | 6.59 c | 474 d | 410 d | 44.5 d | 90.9 c | 79.1 c | 34.0 c |
| SGTL | 134 f | 957 b | 43.3 e | 246 a | 23.1 b | 7.39 b | 405 e | 294 f | 40.3 d | 110 b | 99.9 b | 55.6 b |
| CSBTL | 205 d | 959 a | 41.3 f | 253 a | 12.6 de | 6.87 bc | 576 c | 449 c | 48.8 d | 34.4 de | 31.7 d | 12.4 d |
| CSGTL | 170 e | 955 b | 44.9 e | 261 a | 17.8 bc | 7.49 b | 560 c | 334 e | 42.7 d | 44.7 d | 39.8 d | 26.8 cd |
| RH | 840 c | 908 e | 92.4 b | 200 c | 20.2 b | 6.79 bc | 649 b | 507 b | 435 b | 9.89 ef | 2.19 e | 16.9 cd |
| RS | 944 a | 818 e | 182 a | 60.4 e | 9.9 e | 4.01 d | 787 a | 684 a | 598 a | 6.12 f | 1.08 e | 24.3 cd |
| CON | 864 b | 921 d | 78.9 c | 176 d | 56.6 a | 10.1 a | 271 g | 144 h | 134 c | 3.95 f | 1.61 e | 32.2 cd |
| SEM | 2.37 *** | 0.56 *** | 0.56 *** | 1.77 *** | 0.80 *** | 0.15 *** | 5.35 *** | 5.32 *** | 4.99 *** | 5.74 *** | 4.28 *** | 5.06 *** |
Mean values with different superscripts (a,b,c,d,e,f,g) within a column were significantly different at p < 0.001 (***); SEM, standard error of mean; n, number of replicates; BTL, black tea leaves; GTL, green tea leaves; SBTL, spent BTL; SGTL, spent GTL; CSBTL, company SBTL; CSGTL, company SGTL; RH, ryegrass hay; RS, rice straw; CON, ruminant concentrate mix; DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; ME, metabolizable energy; NDFom, neutral detergent fibre excluding ash; ADFom; acid detergent fibre excluding ash; ADLom, acid detergent lignin excluding ash; TP, total phenols; TT, total tannins; TS, total saponins.
Mean (n = 3) mineral components (mg/kg DM) of different tea leaf products with SEM and significance.
| Compounds(mg/kg DM) | BTL | GTL | SBTL | SGTL | CSBTL | CSGTL | SEM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ca | 6441 c | 6699 c | 8281 b | 8881 b | 10,374 a | 10,753 a | 171 *** |
| K | 7808 a | 8095 a | 2521 b | 2542 b | 632 c | 906 c | 186 *** |
| P | 2413 ab | 2521 a | 1904 d | 2213 bc | 2013 cd | 2183 bcd | 61.8 *** |
| Mg | 1726 bc | 1993 a | 1641 bc | 1848 ab | 1726 c | 1864 bc | 44.7 *** |
| Mn | 527 c | 663 b | 536 c | 747 a | 536 c | 804 a | 13.6 *** |
| Fe | 116 d | 119 d | 169 bc | 143 c | 182 d | 346 ba | 6.68 *** |
| Na | 150 c | 78.2 d | 180.1 c | 94.6 d | 1789 a | 1303 b | 8.11 *** |
| Cu | 23.8 a | 16.9 b | 24.0 a | 16.6 b | 26.9 a | 23.8 a | 1.16 *** |
| Zn | 21.7 ab | 21.2 ab | 22.4 ab | 19.5 b | 23.7 a | 20.4 b | 0.63 ** |
| Ni | 1.69 a | 1.58 a | 1.17 b | 0.49 c | 0.69 c | 0.40 c | 0.08 *** |
| Cr | 1.22 b | 1.32 b | 1.45 b | 1.08 b | 1.24 b | 2.37 a | 0.14 *** |
| Pb | 0.59 b | 0.51 b | 0.73 b | 0.39 b | 0.65 b | 1.48 a | 0.14 ** |
| Cd | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.01 NS |
Mean values with different superscripts (a,b,c,d) within a row were significantly different at p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***); NS, non-significant; SEM, standard error of mean; n, number of replicates; BTL, black tea leaves; GTL, green tea leaves; SBTL, spent BTL; SGTL, spent GTL; CSBTL, company SBTL; CSGTL, company SGTL.
Figure 1Example HPLC chromatograms of BTL (left) vs. SBTL (right) samples: (1) Theobromine, (2) gallocatechin, (3) epigallocatechin, (4) catechin, (5) Caffeine, (6) epicatechin, (7) epigallocatechin gallate, (8) gallocatechin gallate, (9) epicatechin gallate, (10) catechin gallate, (11) Rutin, (12) theaflavin, (13) theaflavin-3-gallate, (14) theaflavin-3′-gallate, and (15) theaflavin-3,3′-digallate.
Figure 2Example HPLC chromatograms of GTL (left) vs. SGTL (right) samples: (1) Theobromine, (2) gallocatechin, (3) epigallocatechin, (4) catechin, (5) Caffeine, (6) epicatechin, (7) epigallocatechin gallate, (8) gallocatechin gallate, (9) epicatechin gallate, (10) catechin gallate, (11) Rutin, (12) theaflavin, (13) theaflavin-3-gallate, (14) theaflavin-3′-gallate, and (15) theaflavin-3,3′-digallate.
Mean (n = 3) alkaloid and phenolic components (g/kg DM) of different tea leaf products with SEM and significance.
| Compounds | BTL | GTL | SBTL | SGTL | CSBTL | CSGTL | SEM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theobromine | 1.37 b | 2.58 a | 0.40 d | 0.76 c | 0.03 e | 0.11 e | 0.02 *** |
| Caffeine | 27.4 b | 28.9 a | 9.47 c | 9.89 c | 0.93 d | 0.91 d | 0.16 *** |
| Total alkaloids | 28.8 b | 31.5 a | 9.87 d | 10.7 c | 0.96 e | 1.02 e | 0.16 *** |
| Gallocatechin | n.d. | 4.93 a | n.d. | 1.61 b | n.d. | 0.81 c | 0.07 *** |
| Epigallocatechin | 3.51 c | 22.4 a | 0.80 d | 9.02 b | 0.07 e | 3.22 c | 0.14 *** |
| Catechin | 0.40 b | 1.30 a | 0.14 c | 0.40 b | 0.03 c | 0.14 d | 0.01 *** |
| Epicatechin | 0.28 c | 2.13 a | 0.03 d | 1.37 b | 0.08 d | 0.25 c | 0.02 *** |
| Epigallocatechin gallate | 4.45 d | 94.6 a | 2.30 e | 51.8 b | 3.69 de | 10.7 c | 0.41 *** |
| Gallocatechin gallate | 0.60 c | 1.15 a | 0.16 d | 0.85 b | 0.16 d | 0.75 b | 0.03 *** |
| Epicatechin gallate | 5.41 c | 25.5 a | 2.30 e | 14.4 b | 1.90 e | 4.23 d | 0.15 *** |
| Catechin gallate | 1.33 c | 3.10 a | 0.51 e | 1.97 b | 0.39 e | 0.68 d | 0.03 *** |
| Total catechins | 16.0 d | 155 a | 6.24 e | 73.3 b | 6.32 e | 20.8 c | 0.68 *** |
| Theaflavin | 2.33 a | 0.28 c | 1.44 b | 0.18 d | 0.33 c | 0.07 e | 0.01 *** |
| Theaflavin-3-gallate | 4.57 a | 0.22 d | 3.27 b | 0.13 de | 0.77 c | 0.03 e | 0.03 *** |
| Theaflavin-3′-gallate | 2.8 a | 0.35 d | 2.08 b | 0.22 e | 0.49 c | 0.09 f | 0.02 *** |
| Theaflavin-3,3′-digallate | 6.98 a | 0.38 d | 5.78 b | 0.24 de | 1.19 c | 0.08 e | 0.05 *** |
| Total theaflavins | 16.7 a | 1.23 d | 12.6 b | 0.77 d | 2.77 c | 0.28 e | 0.11 *** |
| Rutin | 2.03 b | 2.11 a | 0.80 d | 1.13 c | n.d. | n.d. | 0.02 *** |
Mean values with different superscripts (a,b,c,d,e,f) within a row were significantly different at p < 0.001 (***); SEM, standard error of mean; n, number of replicates; BTL, black tea leaves; GTL, green tea leaves; SBTL, spent BTL; SGTL, spent GTL; CSBTL, company SBTL; CSGTL, company SGTL.
Mean values of in vitro rumen measurements at 24 h incubation time for the main effect of inclusion levels (L, g/kg DM), tea types (T), diet types (D) and their interactions with SEM and significance.
| Measurement | Levels (g/kg DM) | Tea Types | Diet Types | SEM and Significances | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 50 | 100 | Black | Green | RH | RS | L | T | D | L*T | L*D | T*D | L*D*T | |
| IVOMD (g/kg OM) | 726 | 715 | 708 | 706 | 727 | 753 | 681 | 7.39 NS | 5.74 * | 5.89 *** | 10.5 NS | 11.2 NS | 8.33 NS | 15.8 NS |
| NH3 (mg/L) | 152 a | 141 b | 126 c | 144 | 135 | 134 | 145 | 1.51 *** | 1.24 *** | 1.24 *** | 2.09 *** | 2.25 NS | 1.80 NS | 3.41 NS |
| pH | 6.69 a | 6.67 b | 6.67 b | 6.68 | 6.67 | 6.65 | 6.70 | 0.002 *** | 0.002 *** | 0.002 *** | 0.003 ** | 0.003 NS | 0.003 NS | 0.005 NS |
| tVFA (mmol/L) | 48.6 | 48.5 | 50.2 | 48.4 | 49.8 | 48.6 | 49.6 | 1.47 NS | 1.18 NS | 1.18 NS | 2.16 NS | 2.16 NS | 1.73 NS | 3.26 NS |
| A:P ratio | 2.70 b | 2.78 ab | 2.83 b | 2.74 | 2.81 | 2.77 | 2.78 | 0.03 ** | 0.02* | 0.02 NS | 0.04 NS | 0.04 NS | 0.03 NS | 0.05 NS |
| Acetate | 28.2 | 28.3 | 29.8 | 28.2 | 29.4 | 28.4 | 29.2 | 1.04 NS | 0.84 NS | 0.84 NS | 1.52 NS | 1.52 NS | 1.21 NS | 2.30 NS |
| Propionate | 10.4 | 10.2 | 10.5 | 10.3 | 10.4 | 10.3 | 10.5 | 0.31 NS | 0.25 NS | 0.25 NS | 0.45 NS | 0.45 NS | 0.36 NS | 0.68 NS |
| iso-Butyrate | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.03 NS |
| n-Butyrate | 6.70 | 6.71 | 6.77 | 6.69 | 6.76 | 6.74 | 6.71 | 0.11 NS | 0.09 NS | 0.09 NS | 0.16 NS | 0.16 NS | 0.13 NS | 0.24 NS |
| iso-Valerate | 1.42 | 1.39 | 1.35 | 1.38 | 1.39 | 1.38 | 1.39 | 0.02 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.03 NS | 0.03 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.04 NS |
| Valerate | 1.04 | 1.02 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.02 | 1.06 | 0.97 | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.03 NS |
| tGP (L/kg OM) | 243 | 244 | 243 | 241 | 246 | 251 | 236 | 1.40 NS | 1.17 ** | 1.17 *** | 2.14 NS | 2.14 NS | 1.70 NS | 3.23 NS |
| CH4 (% total gas) | 14.1 a | 13.3 b | 13.1 b | 13.5 | 13.4 | 13.3 | 13.6 | 0.18 ** | 0.15 NS | 0.15 NS | 0.26 NS | 0.26 NS | 0.21 NS | 0.40 NS |
| CH4 (L/kg OM) | 34.3 a | 32.3 b | 31.7 b | 32.6 | 33.0 | 33.4 | 32.1 | 0.45 ** | 0.37 NS | 0.37* | 0.67 NS | 0.67 NS | 0.54 NS | 1.02 NS |
| CO2 (% total gas) | 67.5 | 66.6 | 67.4 | 67.0 | 67.4 | 67.6 | 66.7 | 1.87 NS | 1.49 NS | 1.52 NS | 2.64 NS | 2.82 * | 2.21 NS | 3.99 NS |
| CO2 (L/kg OM) | 165 | 162 | 164 | 162 | 166 | 170 | 158 | 4.80 NS | 3.82 NS | 3.92* | 6.79 NS | 6.79 NS | 5.67 NS | 10.3 NS |
Mean values with different superscripts (a,b,c) within a row were significantly different at p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), or p < 0.001 (***); NS, non-significant; SEM, standard error of mean; n, number of replications; RH, ryegrass hay; RS, rice straws; IVOMD, in vitro organic matter degradability; NH3, ammonia; tVFA, total volatile fatty acids; A:P ratio, acetate to propionate ratio; tGP, total gas production; CH4, methane; CO2, carbon dioxide.
Mean values of rumen in vitro measurements at 24 h incubation time for the main effect of inclusion levels (L, g/kg DM), STL types (S), diet types (D) and their interactions with SEM and significance.
| Measurement | Levels (g/kg DM) | STL Types | Diet Types | SEM and Significance | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100 | 200 | Black | Green | RH | RS | L | S | D | L*S | L*D | S*D | L*S*D | |
| IVOMD (g/kg OM) | 797 | 799 | 798 | 794 | 803 | 821 | 775 | 6.40 NS | 4.18 NS | 4.26 *** | 9.04 NS | 6.13 NS | 6.03 NS | 13.7 NS |
| NH3 (mg/L) | 154 | 154 | 153 | 154 | 153 | 152 | 155 | 1.05 NS | 0.72 NS | 0.72 *** | 1.49 NS | 1.49* | 1.04 NS | 2.11 NS |
| pH | 6.72 | 6.70 | 6.69 | 6.71 | 6.70 | 6.67 | 6.74 | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.01 *** | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.02 NS |
| tVFA (mmol/L) | 40.7 | 40.0 | 38.8 | 40.4 | 39.9 | 42.7 | 37.6 | 0.95 NS | 0.63 NS | 0.63 *** | 1.34 NS | 1.34 NS | 0.89 NS | 1.89 NS |
| A:P ratio | 1.75 c | 1.83 a | 1.81 b | 1.79 | 1.81 | 1.84 | 1.76 | 0.005 *** | 0.005 ** | 0.005 *** | 0.010 * | 0.010 *** | 0.006 NS | 0.014 NS |
| Acetate | 22.2 a | 21.7 ab | 21.3 b | 22.1 | 22.0 | 23.6 | 20.5 | 0.51 * | 0.34 NS | 0.34 *** | 0.73 NS | 0.73 NS | 0.49 NS | 1.03 NS |
| Propionate | 12.7 a | 12.4 ab | 11.8 b | 12.4 | 12.2 | 12.9 | 11.7 | 0.29 * | 0.19 NS | 0.19 *** | 0.40 NS | 0.40 NS | 0.27 NS | 0.57 NS |
| iso-Butyrate | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.02 NS | 0.01 NS | 0.01 *** | 0.02 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.03 NS |
| n-Butyrate | 3.44 | 3.53 | 3.35 | 3.48 | 3.40 | 3.66 | 3.23 | 0.09 NS | 0.06 NS | 0.06 *** | 0.12 NS | 0.12 NS | 0.08 NS | 0.18 NS |
| iso-Valerate | 0.69 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.65 | 0.02 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.02 ** | 0.03 NS | 0.03 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.05 NS |
| Valerate | 1.15 | 1.14 | 1.09 | 1.15 | 1.10 | 1.28 | 0.98 | 0.03 NS | 0.02 NS | 0.02 ** | 0.04 NS | 0.04 NS | 0.03 NS | 0.06 NS |
| tGP (L/kg OM) | 175 | 179 | 177 | 175 | 179 | 193 | 161 | 1.55 NS | 1.04 ** | 1.05 *** | 2.19 NS | 2.19 *** | 1.49 NS | 3.10 NS |
| CH4 (% total gas) | 13.8 a | 13.3 b | 13.4 b | 13.6 | 13.5 | 13.3 | 13.7 | 0.12 ** | 0.08 NS | 0.08 ** | 0.16 NS | 0.16 NS | 0.11 NS | 0.23 NS |
| CH4 (L/kg OM) | 24.2 | 23.8 | 23.6 | 23.7 | 24.1 | 25.7 | 22.0 | 0.29 NS | 0.20 NS | 0.20 ** | 0.41 NS | 0.41 ** | 0.28 NS | 0.58 NS |
| CO2 (% total gas) | 68.7 | 67.1 | 65.8 | 66.7 | 67.7 | 70.1 | 64.3 | 1.22 NS | 0.83 NS | 0.83 *** | 1.72 NS | 1.72 NS | 1.17 NS | 2.44 NS |
| CO2 (L/kg OM) | 121 | 121 | 117 | 117 | 122 | 135 | 104 | 2.46 NS | 1.68 * | 1.68 *** | 3.48 NS | 3.48 ** | 2.40 NS | 4.92NS |
Mean values with different superscripts (a,b,c) within a row were significantly different at p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), or p < 0.001 (***); NS, non-significant; SEM, standard error of mean; n, number of replications; STL, spent tea leaves; RH, ryegrass hay; RS, rice straws; IVOMD, in vitro organic matter degradability; NH3, ammonia; tVFA, total volatile fatty acids; A:P ratio, acetate to propionate ratio; tGP, total gas production; CH4, methane; CO2, carbon dioxide.
Figure 3Cumulative total gas production (tGP, L/kg OM) of tea leaves (a) and spent tea leaves (STL, (b)) in either ryegrass hay (RH, grey) or rice straw (RS, black) based diets during rumen in vitro incubation up to 24 h.