Effects of dietary inclusion of blooming Ulva sp. on milk production, methane emitting potential, and physiological parameters in lactating Holstein cows

Article information

Anim Biosci. 2025;38(11):2418-2427

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 June 4

doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.25.0060

Kiyeon Park ¹

, Yoorae Kim ¹

, Eungseok Kim ¹^,²

, Jongchul Lee ³

, Weonjong Yoon ³

, Kyewon Kang ⁴

, Seongwon Seo ⁴

, Honggu Lee ¹^,

¹Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sanghuh College of Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea

²IANS Co., Ltd., Cheonan, Korea

³Jeju Biodiversity Research Institute, Jeju Technopark, Jeju, Korea

⁴Division of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea

^*Corresponding Author: Honggu Lee, Tel: +82-2-450-5023, E-mail: hglee66@konkuk.ac.kr

Received 2025 January 31; Revised 2025 March 18; Accepted 2025 May 23.

Abstract

Objective

Ulva sp., a blooming macroalgae causing the green tide in Korea, has been suggested as a feed ingredient for ruminant livestock. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of 3% dry matter inclusion of Ulva sp. in a total mixed ration (TMR) on milk production, methane emitting potential, and physiological parameters in lactating Holstein cows.

Methods

A total of 36 cows were allocated into two groups considering milk production, parity, days in milk, and methane production concentration from respiration and eructation, and fed the TMR with or without 3% dry matter inclusion of Ulva sp. for 4 weeks. Methane emitting potential was measured using a laser methane detector in week 4, and feed, milk, and blood were collected every 2 weeks.

Results

Ulva sp. inclusion did not affect methane production concentration from respiration and eructation, but tended to decrease the methane intensity concentration from respiration (p = 0.06) and eructation (p = 0.06). In addition, it increased the milk fat yield, energy-corrected milk, and net energy for lactation in week 2, but this did not persist to week 4, indicating the interaction between treatment and week (p<0.05). Likewise, it increased milk urea nitrogen, blood urea nitrogen, and white blood cell counts in week 2 but not in week 4 (p<0.05). Cortisol concentration in hair tended to decrease with Ulva sp. inclusion (p<0.10), whereas the serum total antioxidant capacity and uric acid were not affected.

Conclusion

It was demonstrated that Ulva sp. can be utilized as a feed ingredient for lactating cows without any adverse effects on milk production, complete blood cell counts, or blood metabolites. The potential methane-reducing property of Ulva sp. should be further investigated in future studies.

Keywords: Algae; CH₄; Cortisol; Dairy; Green Tide; Seaweed

INTRODUCTION

In the livestock industry, rumen CH₄ mitigation is one of the most intensively studied areas, as the CH₄ emission from ruminant enteric fermentation accounts for 39.1% of greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock supply chain and 5.7% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Among the various approaches to mitigate rumen methane emission, seaweeds have shown profound CH₄-mitigating effects, especially Asparagopsis sp. [2–4]. In this regard, the CH₄ mitigation properties of various seaweed species from Korea have been extensively investigated [5–7].

A massive bloom of Ulva sp., also called the green tide, occurred in China and Korea and incurred considerable disposal costs and environmental damage [8,9]. In this regard, large amounts of Ulva sp. were collected, but there was no effective strategy for the utilization of the collected biomass. As a solution, our research team suggested utilizing Ulva sp. as a ruminant feed ingredient [7]. Ulva sp. and U. ohnoi harvested from tropical coast of Australia reduced rumen methane emissions when incubated in vitro [4]. It was assumed that ulvan, the sulfated polysaccharides of Ulva sp. induced the methane mitigating effects [10–12]. However, the effects of Ulva sp. cultivated in laboratory on the methane reduction was observed in in vitro batch culture, but not in continuous culture [3,13]. These inconsistent results could be due to the different sampling condition of the seaweed. Chemical composition of seaweeds can vary by the geographical and seasonal variations [14–16]. Therefore, study investigating the effects of Ulva sp. collected in temperate coast of Northeast Asia in ruminant diet is required. In our previous study, Ulva sp. bloomed in Korea were included in up to 4% dry matter (DM) to make an isoenergetic and isoproteic diet and then incubated in in situ and in vitro [7]. As a result, the Ulva sp. decreased the rumen methane production and proportion and did not affect total volatile fatty acids production up to 3% DM inclusion. However, further effects of Ulva sp. on dairy productivity and physiology, especially antioxidant and immunomodulating properties, remain undetermined.

The objective of the present study was to demonstrate the effects of the dietary inclusion of Ulva sp. on (1) milk production, (2) methane emitting potential, and (3) physiological parameters in lactating Holstein cows. Based on our previous study, a 3% DM inclusion rate was chosen [7]. It was hypothesized that (1) Ulva sp. inclusion does not impair milk production in lactating cows, (2) Ulva sp. may reduce rumen methane emitting potential, and (3) Ulva sp. inclusion may have antioxidant and immunomodulating effects in lactating cows.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals, diet, and experimental design

All animal procedures were approved by the Institution of Animal Care and Use Committee at Konkuk University (Approval no. KU21141). A total of 36 lactating Holstein cows (milk yield: 33.37±5.82 kg d⁻¹; parity: 2.03±1.17; days in milk: 198.64±62.09 d; methane production concentration from respiration, MPCR: 33.94±8.21 ppm m⁻¹; methane production concentration from eructation, MPCE: 133.74±66.75 ppm m⁻¹) were allocated into two groups considering parity, days in milk, milk production, MPCE, and MPCR. The cows were fed with or without 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. in the total mixed ration (TMR) for 4 weeks. In addition to the TMR, all cows were fed 1.84 kg DM of concentrate and 0.57 kg DM of rye silage.

All feeds were sampled every 2 weeks and analyzed in triplicate. Ether extract (Method 920.39) and crude ash (Ash; Method 942.05) were analyzed as described by AOAC [17]. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber were analyzed according to the procedure of Van Soest et al [18] using a heat-stable amylase with residual ash. The acid detergent lignin content was analyzed as described by Jung et al [19]. Nitrogen contents, including crude protein (CP), neutral detergent insoluble CP (NDICP), and acid detergent insoluble CP (ADICP), were analyzed using the procedure of AOAC [17]; Method 954.01). The CP, NDICP, and ADICP contents of Ulva sp. were estimated using a specific nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor of 5.13 [20]. Nitrogen in NDF (NDF_N) was calculated by subtracting NDICP from NDF. The net energy for lactation (NE_L) was calculated as described in NRC [21]. The chemical compositions of the diets are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Chemical compositions of diet total mixed ration for control and treatment groups (3 DM% inclusion of Ulva sp.), concentrate, rye silage, and Ulva sp.

Ulva sp. collection

Ulva sp. blooming in Korea were manually collected in Seongsan-eup, Seogwipo-si, Jeju-do, Republic of Korea, from September 2020 to August 2021. The collected Ulva sp. was roughly dried at 40°C–45°C for 48–96 h and then thoroughly air-dried at 55°C for 72 h. The dried Ulva sp. was pulverized and then mixed into the TMR.

Sampling and lab analysis procedure

Enteric CH₄ emissions were measured on the last week of the trial using a laser methane detector (LMD, mini-G[50A], Tokyo Gas Engineering), as described by Kang et al [22]. In brief, the exhaled CH₄ concentration (ppm m⁻¹) of each cow was measured 4 times a day (−2, −1, +1, and +2 h after morning feeding) for 6 min. The data were processed using an Automatic Multi-scale Peak Detection algorithm to separate the peaks into respiration and eructation. Then, MPCR and MPCE were analyzed and reported. The average of each of the 4 measurements was presumed to be the most representative daily CH₄ production from each cow. The MPCR and MPCE are expressed as ppm m⁻¹, and the methane intensity concentration from respiration (MICR) and the methane intensity concentration from eructation (MICE) are expressed as ppm m⁻¹ per kg milk yield per day.

Milk samples were collected during 2 consecutive milking events, pooled in equal volume with 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3 diol (Broad Spectrum Bicrotabs 2; Advanced Instruments), and analyzed every 2 weeks using MilkoScan FT1 (FossAlle 1 DK – 3400).

Blood samples were collected from jugular veins every 2 weeks before feeding. Complete blood cell counts (CBCs) were analyzed using VetScan HM2 (Abaxis). Serum metabolites, including glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT), glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatine, albumin, total protein, triglycerides, and uric acid, and plasma metabolites, including total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and glucose, were analyzed using a DRI CHEM 7000i biochemistry analyzer (FUJIFILM). Serum total antioxidant capacity (TAC) was analyzed using an assay kit (MBS2540515; MyBioSource) according to the manufacturer’s protocol using spectrophotometry (Synergy2; biotek).

The hair grown during the experiment was prepared according to the procedure described by Nejad et al [23]. The hair was ground using a bead beater (tacoPrep Bead Beater, ATPB-01; GeneReach Biotechnology) and analyzed using a cortisol ELISA kit (1-3002; Salimetrics) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

Statistical analysis

The data sampled repeatedly, including milk production, CBCs, and blood metabolites, were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS software (SAS Institute) with the sources of Ulva sp. inclusion, week, and their interaction as a fixed factor, and animal as a random factor. The covariance structure with the lowest AIC value was chosen among the CS, CSH, AR(1), ARH(1), TOEPH, and ANTE(1) statements. The other data, including methane production and intensity, hair cortisol, and TAC, were analyzed with the source of Ulva sp. inclusion as a fixed factor, and animal within a group as a random factor. All values are reported as LSMEANS. A significant difference was accepted when p<0.05, and the tendency was accepted when 0.05≤p<0.10.

RESULTS

Milk production

The effects of 3 % DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on milk productivity are shown in Table 2. The milk yield, proportion of milk fat, protein, lactose, lactose yield, and somatic cell counts were not affected by Ulva sp. An interaction between treatment and week was detected for the milk fat yield (p = 0.04), energy-corrected milk (ECM; p<0.05), NE_L (p<0.05), milk urea nitrogen (MUN; p = 0.01), and milk acetone (p = 0.01). In detail, Ulva sp. inclusion increased the milk fat yield in week 2, but there were no significant differences in week 4 (Figure 1). Likewise, ECM, NE_L, and MUN increased with Ulva sp. inclusion in week 2, but there were no significant differences in week 4. Ulva sp. inclusion decreased milk acetone in weeks 2 and 4. However, Ulva sp. inclusion decreased milk beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) regardless of the week (p<0.05).

Table 2

Effects of dietary 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on milk yield and composition in lactating cows

Figure 1

Effects of dietary 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on milk fat yield (A), energy-corrected milk (B), net energy for lactation, NE_L (C), milk urea nitrogen (D), milk acetone (E), glutamic pyruvic transaminase (F), blood urea nitrogen (G), and white blood cell counts (H) in lactating cows. Black represents the group with Ulva sp. inclusion, and white dot represents the control group. * significant difference (p<0.05); ·, tendency (0.05≤p<0.10). NE_L, net energy for lactation; GPT, glutamic pyruvic transaminase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; WBC, white blood cell count; DM, dry matter.

CH₄ emission, hair cortisol, and total antioxidant capacity

The effects of 3 % DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on methane emission are shown in Table 3. Ulva sp. inclusion did not affect MPCR or MPCE. However, it tended to decrease MICR (16.9%; p = 0.06) and MICE (14.2%; p = 0.06). Hair cortisol was also decreased numerically by Ulva sp. (17.6%; p = 0.10; Table 3). There was no effect of Ulva sp. inclusion on TAC.

Table 3

Effects of dietary 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on methane production, intensity, hair cortisol, and total antioxidant capacity in lactating cows

Blood metabolites

The effects of 3 % DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on blood metabolites are shown in Table 4. An interaction between treatment and week was detected for GPT, but there were no significant differences between the control and treatment groups throughout the whole experiment (p = 0.01; Figure 1). Ulva sp. inclusion increased BUN in week 2, but there was no difference in week 4 (p<0.01). An interaction tendency was detected in glucose (p = 0.07) and HDL (p = 0.09). However, there were no significant differences between the control and treatment groups in each week. The main effects of Ulva sp. inclusion or interactions were not detected for GOT, creatine, albumin, total protein, triglycerides, uric acid, total cholesterol, LDH, or LDL.

Table 4

Effects of dietary 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on blood metabolites, including glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, glutamic pyruvic transaminase, blood urea nitrogen, creatine, albumin, total protein, triglycerides, uric acid, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, lactate dehydrogenase, and glucose in lactating cows

Complete blood cell counts

The effects of 3 % DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on blood metabolites are shown in Table 5. An interaction between Ulva sp. and week was detected for white blood cell counts (WBCs; p = 0.04). In detail, Ulva sp. inclusion tended to decrease WBCs in week 2 (p = 0.08), but not in week 0 or 4 (Figure 1). The proportions of lymphocytes, monocytes, and granulocytes were not affected by the main effect of Ulva sp. inclusion or interactions. However, Ulva sp. inclusion tended to decrease the number of granulocytes (13.0 %; p = 0.10) throughout the 4 weeks. In addition, an interaction tendency was detected for the mean corpuscular volume (p = 0.07), but there were no significant differences between the control and treatment groups throughout the 4 weeks. Likewise, red blood cell counts, hematocrit, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, platelet, mean platelet volume, mean platelet volume, and platelet crit were not affected by the main effect of Ulva sp. inclusion or interactions.

Table 5

Effects of dietary 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. on complete blood cell counts in lactating cows

DISCUSSION

The previous study by our research team investigated the nutritional value of Ulva sp. in vitro and in situ [7]. Total volatile fatty acids production was not changed by Ulva sp. inclusion up to 3% dietary DM with linear decreasing CH₄ production. Also, DM effective rumen degradability was similar to that of alfalfa hay (61.3 vs. 62.2 %/h). In our preliminary trial, we demonstrated there was no palatability issue. Therefore, it was presumed that 3% DM inclusion of Ulva sp. did not impair intake, rumen fermentation, and digestibility. However, the lack of intake, rumen microbiome, and digestibility data are the limitations of this study. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, especially regarding the methane-reducing property.

Effects of Ulva sp. dietary inclusion on methane emissions

In our previous study, Ulva sp. bloomed in Korea linearly decreased the production and proportion of methane after 48 h of incubation [7]. Likewise, Ulva sp. harvested from the tropical ocean [4] or cultivated in the lab [3,13] also decreased rumen in vitro CH₄ emission. In the current in vivo study, MICR and MICE tended to decrease as a result of Ulva sp. inclusion, which is in line with our second hypothesis that Ulva sp. inclusion may reduce rumen methane emitting potential. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report the methane-mitigating potential of blooming Ulva sp. in lactating cows. However, methane production, which was reported as MPCR and MPCE, was not affected by the treatment. This could be because LMD data can be influenced by various environmental factors, such as wind speed and direction, relative humidity, and pressure [24]. Meanwhile, the persistency of the anti-methanogenic effects of Ulva sp. is still unclear because this study was conducted for 4 weeks, and methane emission was not repeatedly measured. Ulvan, a water-soluble sulfated polysaccharide that represents 8%–29% of the dry weight of Ulva sp., has been suggested to be a major bioactive compound of Ulva sp. [10,11]. With this value, the estimated ulvan contents fed to cows was 0.24%–0.87% of dietary DM. However, rumen microbes can adapt to some feed additives. Guan et al [25] reported that 33 mg kg⁻¹ of monensin administration decreased 30% of methane emissions in beef cattle, which was restored within 2 months. Wu et al [26] reported that rumen microbes started to adapt to citrus essential oil in terms of methane emissions after 3 weeks of administration. Bacteroidetes phylum has a wide range of carbohydrate-active enzymes, which can degrade algal-derived sulfated polysaccharides, such as fucoidan [12,27]. Therefore, the possibility of rumen microbial adaptation to ulvan remains, which could be related to the temporary effect of Ulva sp. on the milk fat yield described later. A long-term study is required to examine the microbial adaptation to Ulva sp. with repeated measurements of CH₄ emissions and rumen microbial analysis.

Effects of Ulva sp. dietary inclusion on dairy productivity

Milk yield, milk protein, and lactose yield and proportion were not affected by Ulva sp., which is consistent with our first hypothesis. The milk fat yield, ECM, and NE_L increased as a result of Ulva sp. inclusion in week 2 but did not persist to week 4. It is difficult to ascertain whether the increased milk fat yield, NE_L, and ECM were due to the additional energy consumption with Ulva sp., as the energy content of Ulva sp. is comparatively lower than that of the TMR due to its high ash amounts. Therefore, we suggest that the increased milk fat yield, ECM, and NE_L in week 2 were partially due to the saved energy by Ulva sp. such as methane mitigation. Up to 12% of feed gross energy could be partially redirected to milk production via CH₄ mitigation [28]. Kinley et al [2] reported that 0.10% OM of Asparagopsis taxiformis reduced 38% of CH₄ production with an increase in average weight gain. This is partially supported by the reduced milk acetone in this study. Milk acetone is an indicator of hyperketonemia in dairy cows [29]. Although the acetone levels in both groups were far below the hyperketonemia level (1.4 mM), reduced milk acetone showed the potential of Ulva sp. in ketosis prevention by revising the energy balance in lactating cows. However, our previous study reported that the proportion of acetate linearly decreased with the Ulva sp. inclusion rate and that the proportion of propionate linearly increased [7], making it difficult to explain the increased milk fat yield and the maintained milk and lactose yield. Likewise, Maia et al [3] reported that a 25 DM% addition of cultivated Ulva sp. increased the acetate proportion with CH₄ mitigation in the rumen in an in vitro batch culture system. Furthermore, MICR and MICE decreased up to 15% by Ulva sp. in this study. However, MPCR and MPCE were not changed. In addition, ECM increased around 3.3 kg/d by Ulva sp., which is hard to explain only with the CH₄ reduction. If the increased milk fat yield was not via the reduced methanogenesis, then it could be due to its effects on the rumen lipid metabolism and de novo milk fat synthesis in the mammary gland. Considering the low-fat content of Ulva sp. (0.21% DM), it is difficult to presume that the fatty acid profile of Ulva sp. directly affected the milk fat yield. The antimicrobial property of ulvan [10, 11] in Ulva sp. could possibly impact rumen biohydrogenation microbes such as Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens and Butyrivibrio proteoclasticus, and decrease alternative biohydrogenation pathway represented by trans-10, cis-12 C18:2 and trans-10 C18:1. Huang et al [30] reported that phlorotannin extract from Sargassum sp. inhibited rumen biohydrogenation and elevated carbohydrate-utilizing bacteria in the rumen. Likewise, algal bioactive compounds such as ulvan could impact rumen lipid metabolism, resulting in the milk fat yield. Therefore, the impact of ulvan on rumen lipid metabolism is worthwhile to be investigate in future studies. If the effect of Ulva sp. on milk fat yield was via CH₄ reduction or altering rumen lipid metabolism, it disappeared in week 4. It indicates that its effects on the rumen microbiome were temporary probably due to the microbial adaptation. Longer in vivo trials might be required focusing on the rumen microbiome in the future.

Milk urea nitrogen increased as a result of Ulva sp. inclusion in week 2. This could be due to the high nitrogen uptake in the treatment group, which resulted in increased BUN. Our previous study reported that Ulva sp. has a high RUP (54.64% of CP) compared to alfalfa hay (28.57% of CP), which might be due to the high NDICP content [7]. We suggested that the high NDICP content might have originated from the high amounts of glycoproteins in the cell wall of Ulva sp. [31]. The increased MUN and BUN imply that the high RUP of Ulva sp. can be digested and absorbed in lactating cows. Gaillard et al [32] also reported that the total amino acids of Ulva sp. collected from northern Norway have 27.4%, 51.2%, and 78.6% ruminal, small intestinal, and total tract degradability, and they concluded that Ulva sp. can be considered as relevant protein sources for ruminants. However, they did not result in high albumin or total protein in the serum and milk in the present study. This is consistent with the study by Rjiba-Ktita et al [33], who reported that the 20–40 DM% inclusion of Ulva sp. collected from Tunisia did not alter the average daily weight gain, total tract CP digestibility, or the nitrogen balance in lambs. To understand the discrepancy between the increased MUN and BUN, maintained albumin, and the total protein in serum and milk, additional parameters, including urinary and fecal nitrogen excretion, should be measured in future studies.

Effects of Ulva sp. dietary inclusion on blood metabolites, hair cortisol, and complete blood cell counts

Despite the significant interaction between the treatment and week affecting the serum GPT level, there were no significant differences between the control and treatment group throughout the experiment. Likewise, serum GOT and creatine were not affected by Ulva sp. inclusion, indicating that Ulva sp. did not impact liver and kidney function [34,35]. Additionally, the plasma LDH level was not affected by Ulva sp., indicating that Ulva sp. did not affect overall tissue damage and inflammation in lactating cows [36]. Meanwhile, Ulva sp. tended to decrease WBCs in week 2 by reducing the number of granulocytes, which might be related to the immunomodulating effect of ulvan [11]. Kim et al [37] found that 80% ethanol extraction from Ulva sp. increased nitric oxide and TNF-α in RAW 264.7 macrophages, which also could be resulted from the immunomodulating property of ulvan. However, it is difficult to assert that the possible immunomodulating property of Ulva sp. affected the dairy productivity in this study, as all cows maintained a healthy status without any clinical symptoms. More straightforward clinical studies should be conducted in the future to demonstrate the immunomodulating function of Ulva sp. in lactating cows.

An antioxidant capacity of Ulva sp. has been suggested [38]. We hypothesized that the antioxidant capacity of Ulva sp. may contribute to decreasing the stress level in lactating cows. Ulva sp. inclusion showed a tendency to decrease hair cortisol levels by 17.6%, which shows the potential stress alleviation effects of Ulva sp. in lactating cows. This is partially consistent with the study by Ellamie et al [39], who reported that the heat-stress-alleviating effects of Sargassum latifolium in sheep alleviated anemia and dyslipidemia and improved the antioxidant defense system and inflammatory response. However, TAC and uric acid were not affected by Ulva sp. in this study, which is inconsistent with our third hypothesis. Therefore, the detailed mechanism of the stress-relieving effect of Ulva sp. in lactating cows is still unclear, and it should be reinvestigated in the future.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, dietary 3% DM inclusion of blooming Ulva sp. in Korea tended to decrease the methane intensity concentration in lactating cows, which was consistent with our hypothesis. It also increased milk productivity by increasing the milk fat yield, NE_L, and ECM, but it did not persist for 4 weeks. Likewise, it increased MUN and BUN, but this also did not persist for 4 weeks. Rumen microbial adaptation to Ulva sp. needs to be investigated in a long-term in vivo trial. In addition, Ulva sp. inclusion seemed to alleviate stress in lactating cows by decreasing hair cortisol levels, whereas TAC and uric acid were not affected. Although the detailed mechanism of the effect of Ulva sp. on milk production and hair cortisol is still not clear, this study demonstrated that Ulva sp. can be utilized as a feed ingredient for lactating cows without any adverse effects on milk production, CBC, or blood metabolites with potential CH₄ reducing property. Therefore, we strongly suggest utilizing Ulva sp. from the green tide as a dairy cow feed ingredient for the sustainable dairy industry.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Park K.

Data curation: Park K.

Formal analysis: Park K, Kim Y.

Methodology: Park K, Kang K, Seo S.

Software: Park K, Kang K, Seo S.

Validation: Lee H.

Investigation: Park K, Kim Y, Kim E, Lee J, Yoon W.

Writing - original draft: Park K.

Writing - review & editing: Park K, Kim Y, Kim E, Lee J, Yoon W, Kang K, Seo S, Lee H.

FUNDING

Not applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to appreciate the staff of Jeju Biodiversity Research Institute for harvesting the Ulva sp., and the staff of Animal Nutrition, Physiology, and Proteomics lab, Konkuk University for assisting in sampling.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Not applicable.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

ETHICS APPROVAL

All animal procedures were approved by the Institution of Animal Care and Use Committee at Konkuk University (Approval no. KU21141).

DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI

No AI tools were used in this article.

References

1. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.

2. Kinley RD, Martinez-Fernandez G, Matthews MK, de Nys R, Magnusson M, Tomkins NW. Mitigating the carbon footprint and improving productivity of ruminant livestock agriculture using a red seaweed. J Clean Prod 2020;259:120836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120836.

3. Maia MRG, Fonseca AJM, Oliveira HM, Mendonça C, Cabrita ARJ. The potential role of seaweeds in the natural manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production. Sci Rep 2016;6:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32321.

4. Machado L, Magnusson M, Paul NA, de Nys R, Tomkins N. Effects of marine and freshwater macroalgae on in vitro total gas and methane production. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e85289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085289.

5. Choi YY, Lee SJ, Kim HS, Eom JS, Kim DH, Lee SS. The potential nutritive value of Sargassum fulvellum as a feed ingredient for ruminants. Algal Res 2020;45:101761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101761.

6. Choi YY, Lee SJ, Lee YJ, et al. New challenges for efficient usage of Sargassum fusiforme for ruminant production. Sci Rep 2020;10:19655. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76700-3.

7. Park KY, Jo YH, Nejad JG, Lee JC, Lee HG. Evaluation of nutritional value of Ulva sp. and Sargassum horneri as potential eco-friendly ruminants feed. Algal Res 2022;65:102706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102706.

8. Kwon HK, Kang H, Oh YH, Park SR, Kim G. Green tide development associated with submarine groundwater discharge in a coastal harbor, Jeju, Korea. Sci Rep 2017;7:6325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06711-0.

9. Zhang Y, He P, Li H, et al. Ulva prolifera green-tide outbreaks and their environmental impact in the Yellow Sea, China. Natl Sci Rev 2019;6:825–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz026.

10. Hardouin K, Bedoux G, Burlot AS, et al. Enzyme-assisted extraction (EAE) for the production of antiviral and antioxidant extracts from the green seaweed Ulva armoricana (Ulvales, Ulvophyceae). Algal Res 2016;16:233–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.03.013.

11. Tziveleka LA, Ioannou E, Roussis V. Ulvan, a bioactive marine sulphated polysaccharide as a key constituent of hybrid biomaterials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 2019;218:355–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.04.074.

12. Cheong KL, Zhang Y, Li Z, et al. Role of polysaccharides from marine seaweed as feed additives for methane mitigation in ruminants: a critical review. Polymers 2023;15:3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15153153.

13. Maia MRG, Fonseca AJM, Cortez PP, Cabrita ARJ. In vitro evaluation of macroalgae as unconventional ingredients in ruminant animal feeds. Algal Res 2019;40:101481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101481.

14. Rioux LE, Turgeon SL, Beaulieu M. Effect of season on the composition of bioactive polysaccharides from the brown seaweed Saccharina longicruris. Phytochemistry 2009;70:1069–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.04.020.

15. Renaud SM, Luong-Van JT. Seasonal variation in the chemical composition of tropical Australian marine macroalgae. In : Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Seaweed Symposium; 2004 June 20–25; Bergen, Norway: Springer; 2006. p. 155–61.

16. Qari R, Siddiqui SA. A comparative study of heavy metal concentrations in red seaweeds from different coastal areas of Karachi, Arabian Sea. Indian J Mar Sci 2010;39:27–42.

17. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). International Official methods of analysis 15th edth ed. AOAC International; 1990.

18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583–97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2.

19. Jung HG, Mertens DR, Payne AJ. Correlation of acid detergent lignin and Klason lignin with digestibility of forage dry matter and neutral detergent fiber. J Dairy Sci 1997;80:1622–8. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76093-4.

20. Lourenço SO, Barbarino E, De-Paula JC, Pereira LODS, Marquez UML. Amino acid composition, protein content and calculation of nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors for 19 tropical seaweeds. Phycol Res 2002;50:233–41. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1835.2002.00278.x.

21. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle 7th rev edth ed. The National Academies Press; 2001.

22. Kang K, Cho H, Jeong S, et al. Application of a hand-held laser methane detector for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle in intensive farming. J Anim Sci 2022. 100skac211. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac211.

23. Nejad JG, Ataallahi M, Park KH. Methodological validation of measuring Hanwoo hair cortisol concentration using bead beater and surgical scissors. J Anim Sci Technol 2019;61:41–6. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2019.61.1.41.

24. Chagunda MGG, Ross D, Rooke J, et al. Measurement of enteric methane from ruminants using a hand-held laser methane detector. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2013;63:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2013.797487.

25. Guan H, Wittenberg KM, Ominski KH, Krause DO. Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane. J Anim Sci 2006;84:1896–906. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-652.

26. Wu P, Liu ZB, He WF, Yu SB, Gao G, Wang JK. Intermittent feeding of citrus essential oils as a potential strategy to decrease methane production by reducing microbial adaptation. J Clean Prod 2018;194:704–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.167.

27. Vickers C, Liu F, Abe K, et al. Endo-fucoidan hydrolases from glycoside hydrolase family 107 (GH107) display structural and mechanistic similarities to α-l-fucosidases from GH29. J Biol Chem 2018;293:18296–308. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.005134.

28. Johnson KA, Johnson DE. Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 1995;73:2483–92. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7382483x.

29. Gustafsson AH, Emanuelson U. Milk acetone concentration as an indicator of hyperketonaemia in dairy cows: the critical value revised. Anim Sci 1996;63:183–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800014739.

30. Huang Q, Chen Y, Wang X, Wei Y, Pan M, Zhao G. Effects of phlorotannins from sargassum on in vitro rumen fermentation, microbiota and fatty acid profile. Animals 2023;13:2854. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182854.

31. Stiger-Pouvreau V, Bourgougnon N, Deslandes E. Carbohydrates from seaweeds. In : Fleurence J, Levine I, eds. Seaweed in health and disease prevention Elsevier; 2016. p. 223–74.

32. Gaillard C, Bhatti HS, Novoa-Garrido M, Lind V, Roleda MY, Weisbjerg MR. Amino acid profiles of nine seaweed species and their in situ degradability in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2018;241:210–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.05.003.

33. Rjiba-Ktita S, Chermiti A, Valdés C, López S. Digestibility, nitrogen balance and weight gain in sheep fed with diets supplemented with different seaweeds. J Appl Phycol 2019;31:3255–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-019-01789-7.

34. Miller DM, Stuart BP, Crowell WA. Experimental aflatoxicosis in swine: morphological and clinical pathological results. Can J Comp Med 1981;45:343–51.

35. Murayama I, Miyano A, Sasaki Y, Kimura A, Sato S, Furuhama K. Glomerular filtration rate in Holstein dairy cows estimated from a single blood sample using iodixanol. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:5120–8. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6884.

36. Zank W, Schlatterer B. Assessment of subacute mammary inflammation by soluble biomarkers in comparison to somatic cell counts in quarter milk samples from dairy cows. J Vet Med Ser A 1998;45:41–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0442.1998.tb00799.x.

37. Kim JY, Kim DS, Yang EJ, et al. Green alga Ulva pertusa inhibits nitric oxide and prostaglandin-Esaformation in murine macrophage RAW 264.7 cells. J Appl Biol Chem 2009;52:38–40. https://doi.org/10.3839/jabc.2009.007.

38. Li B, Xu H, Wang X, et al. Antioxidant and antihyperlipidemic activities of high sulfate content purified polysaccharide from Ulva pertusa. Int J Biol Macromol 2020;146:756–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.11.061.

39. Ellamie AM, Fouda WA, Ibrahim WM, Ramadan G. Dietary supplementation of brown seaweed (Sargassum latifolium) alleviates the environmental heat stress-induced toxicity in male Barki sheep (Ovis aries). J Therm Biol 2020;89:102561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2020.102561.

40. Sjaunja LO. A Nordic proposal for an energy-corrected milk (ECM) formula. In : 27th Session International Committee for Recording and Productivity of Milk Animals; 1990 July 2–6; Paris, France.

41. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle 8th rev edth ed. The National Academies Press; 2021.

Article information Continued

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Parameters	TMR	Concentrate	Rye silage	Ulva sp.
Analyzed values (%, dry matter basis)
CP¹⁾	16.5±0.10	20.36±1.60	7.79±1.96	15.26±0.08
NDF	43.77±0.27	27.34±0.20	69.92±0.96	36.21±0.48
NDICP	6.08±0.77	13.54±0.39	1.25±0.18	10.45±0.31
ADF	22.25±1.37	10.45±0.26	44.13±0.86	15.22±0.30
ADICP	3.59±0.25	5.76±0.42	1.08±0.04	3.73±0.41
ADL	4.12±0.13	1.72±0.34	6.58±2.50	5.68±0.38
EE	4.44±0.32	4.29±0.18	3.51±0.51	0.21±0.01
Ash	7.57±0.06	7.65±0.31	8.32±0.84	30.48±0.09
Calculated values
NDF_N	37.69	13.80	68.67	25.76
NE_L	1.56	1.77	1.15	0.85

Parameters	CON	TRT	SEM	p-value

				Trt	Wk	Trt×Wk
Milk yield (kg d⁻¹)	31.2	32.7	0.54	0.41	<0.01	0.18
Fat (%)	3.87	4.25	0.142	0.18	<0.01	0.17
Protein (%)	3.23	3.23	0.019	0.95	<0.01	0.11
Lactose (%)	4.72	4.76	0.013	0.38	0.63	0.56
Fat yield (kg d⁻¹)	1.17	1.38	0.045	0.01	<0.01	0.04
Protein yield (kg d⁻¹)	1.00	1.05	0.016	0.36	<0.01	0.55
Lactose yield (kg d⁻¹)	1.47	1.55	0.026	0.34	<0.01	0.74
ECM yield (kg d⁻¹)¹⁾	30.0	33.3	0.66	0.03	<0.01	0.05
NE_L yield (Mcal kg⁻¹)²⁾	22.6	25.1	0.50	0.03	<0.01	0.05
Somatic cells counts (10³ mL⁻¹)	240	308	81.1	0.73	0.07	0.58
MUN (mg dL⁻¹)	17.9	18.2	0.19	0.57	<0.01	0.01
Acetone (μM)	76.7	47.0	0.01	0.02	<0.01	0.01
BHB (μM)	85.4	78.7	0.00	0.05	<0.01	0.11

Parameters	CON	TRT	SEM	p-value
MPCR (ppm m⁻¹)	37.4	36.0	1.89	0.71
MPCE (ppm m⁻¹)	155	150	5.8	0.67
MICR (ppm m⁻¹ kg milk yield⁻¹)	1.27	1.06	0.059	0.06
MICE (ppm m⁻¹ kg milk yield⁻¹)	5.24	4.50	0.198	0.06
Hair cortisol (pg mg⁻¹)	5.77	4.76	0.309	0.10
Total antioxidant capacity (U mL⁻¹)	5.05	4.52	0.211	0.22

Parameters	CON	TRT	SEM	p-value

				Trt	Wk	Trt×Wk
GOT (U L⁻¹)	72.8	73.5	1.08	0.85	0.02	0.19
GPT (U L⁻¹)	36. 6	36.7	0.46	0.91	<0.01	0.01
BUN (mg dL⁻¹)	21.4	21.3	0.24	0.97	<0.01	<0.01
Creatine (μg dL⁻¹)	668	648	9.2	0.44	<0.01	0.75
Albumin (g dL⁻¹)	3.73	3.72	0.022	0.83	0.34	0.69
Total protein (g dL⁻¹)	7.70	7.65	0.040	0.67	0.03	0.46
Triglycerides (mg dL⁻¹)	4.46	4.63	0.268	0.81	0.02	0.29
Uric acid (U L⁻¹)	1.23	1.18	0.017	0.26	<0.01	0.11
Glucose (mg dL⁻¹)	42.1	43.3	0.75	0.52	<0.01	0.07
TCHO (mg dL⁻¹)	323	329	5.6	0.72	<0.01	0.54
LDH (U L⁻¹)	958	979	19.0	0.67	<0.01	0.25
HDL (mg dL⁻¹)	216	227	5.4	0.56	<0.01	0.09
LDL (mg dL⁻¹)	107	103	2.6	0.38	0.13	0.70

Parameters	CON	TRT	SEM	p-value

				Trt	Wk	Trt×Wk
WBCs (10⁹ L⁻¹)	13.2	12.3	0.32	0.37	0.47	0.04
Lymphocytes (10⁹ L⁻¹)	8.12	7.76	0.305	0.72	0.31	0.23
Lymphocytes (%)	60. 8	62.2	1.22	0.70	0.22	0.35
Monocytes (10⁹ L⁻¹)	0.594	0.634	0.0557	0.70	<0.01	0.43
Monocytes (%)	4.69	5.48	0.433	0.38	<0.01	0.55
Granulocytes (10⁹ L⁻¹)	4.44	3.87	0.139	0.10	0.12	0.24
Granulocytes (%)	35.1	32.3	1.01	0.36	0.05	0.25
RBCs (10¹² L⁻¹)	7.11	7.38	0.076	0.24	<0.01	0.93
Hemoglobin (g dL⁻¹)	11.1	11.2	0.11	0.67	<0.01	0.61
Hematocrit (%)	31.7	32.1	0.28	0.71	<0.01	0.69
MCV (fL)	44.7	43.6	0.30	0.29	0.67	0.07
RDWc (%)	19.6	19.9	0.09	0.24	<0.01	0.89
MCH (pg)	15.6	15.3	0.10	0.44	0.01	0.19
MCHC (g dL⁻¹)	34.8	35.1	0.10	0.28	0.01	0.82
Platelet (109 L⁻¹)	381	420	29.4	0.52	0.03	0.66
MPV (fL)	7.20	7.21	0.054	0.95	0.13	0.65
PCT (%)	0.274	0.292	0.0151	0.56	0.04	0.65
PDWc (%)	32.4	33.0	0.21	0.33	0.25	0.18