Two experiments were conducted to compare a supplemental blend of essential oils alone (EO) or combined with enzymes (EO + ENZ) versus virginiamycin (VM), on characteristics of growth performance (Exp. 1) and digestion (Exp. 2) in finishing lambs. Lambs were fed a high-energy finishing diet supplemented with: (1) no supplement (control); (2) 150 mg supplemental EO; (3) 150 mg supplemental EO plus 560 mg alpha-amylase (EO + ENZ); and 4) 25 mg VM. Compared with the control, growth performance response to EO and VM were similar, enhancing (5.7%, p < 0.05) feed efficiency and observed dietary net energy. Compared with control, supplementation with EO + ENZ tended (p = 0.09) to increase dry matter intake (6.8%), improving (p < 0.05) weight gain and feed efficiency (10.4 and 4.4%, respectively). Dietary energy utilization was greater (2.7%, p < 0.05) for EO and VM than EO + ENZ. Treatment effects on the carcass and visceral mass were small, but additive supplementation decreased (p ≤ 0.03) the relative weight of the intestines. There were no treatment effects on measures of digestion nor digestible energy of the diet. Supplemental EO may be an effective alternative to VM in high-energy finishing diets for feedlot lambs. Combination EO + ENZ may further enhance dry matter intake, promoting increased weight gain.

The aim of this trial was to test the effects of the use of eubiotics (pro- and prebiotics) alone or in combination in the diet of lambs finished under subtropical climate conditions. For this purpose, 40 Pelibuey × Katahdin lambs (29.5 ± 4.8 kg initial live weight) were used in a 93 day growth-performance experiment. Dietary treatments consisted of a cracked corn-based finishing diet supplemented with (1) no eubiotics (control), (2) 3 g of probiotics (live Saccharomyces cerevisiae, SC), (3) 3 g of prebiotics (mannan oligosaccharide plus b-glucans, MOS), and (4) a combination of 1.5 g of SC and 1.5 g of MOS (SC+MOS). Throughout the study, the average temperature humidity index (THI) was 78.60. Compared to controls, supplementation with SC or MOS, alone did not affect average daily gain (ADG), but enhanced feed efficiency by 5.6% and 6.9% (gain-to-feed ratio, G:F) and dietary net energy by 4.6% and 5.9%, respectively. Compared to controls, SC+MOS enhanced ADG (10%), G:F (9.5%), and dietary net energy (7.2%). Lambs fed SC+MOS had also greater ADG, G:F, and dietary net energy compared to lambs fed SC alone. When compared to MOS, the combination enhanced ADG (10.4%, p = 0.04). This effect could be attributed to the increased dry matter intake (7.6%, p = 0.06), as neither G:F nor dietary energy was significantly affected. Compared with controls and SC, supplementation with MOS alone and SC+MOS increased kidney-pelvic-heart fat, while SC supplementation tended (p = 0.08) to reduce 4.1% the relative intestinal mass (as a proportion of empty body weight) when compared to controls. Treatment effects on the other carcass measures were not significant. In the present study, supplemental probiotics and/or prebiotics improved dietary energetic efficiency in lambs finished under subtropical climatic conditions. The combination of probiotics with prebiotics reinforced this positive effect.