Marine Macroalgae in Rabbit Nutrition: In Vitro Digestibility, Caecal Fermentability, and Microbial Inhibitory Activity of Seven Macroalgae Species from Galicia (NW Spain)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101995 www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture Article Marine Macroalgae in Rabbit Nutrition: In Vitro Digestibility, Caecal Fermentability, and Microbial Inhibitory Activity of Seven Macroalgae Species from Galicia (NW Spain) Sabela Al-Soufi 1, Nuria Nicodemus 2, María Dolores Carro 2, Marta López-Alonso 1, Marta Miranda 3,*, Antonio Muíños 4, Eugenio Cegarra 5, Beatriz Vázquez-Belda 6, Herminia Domínguez 7, María Dolores Torres 7, Noelia Flórez-Fernández 7 and Javier García 2 1 Departamento de Patoloxía Animal, Facultade de Veterinaria, Campus Terra, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain; sabelaalsoufi.nov[email protected] (S.A.-S.); [email protected] (M.L.-A.) 2 Departamento de Producción Agraria, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Agroalimentaria y de Biosistemas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (N.N.); mariadolores.carr[email protected] (M.D.C.); javier.garci[email protected] (J.G.) 3 Departamento de Anatomía, Produción Animal e Ciencias Clínicas Veterinarias, Facultade de Veterinaria, Campus Terra, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain 4 Porto Muíños S.L., 15185 Cerceda, Spain; [email protected] 5 De Heus Nutrición Animal, 15004 A Coruña, Spain; [email protected] 6 Laboratorio de Hixiene, Inspección e Control de Alimentos, Departamento de Química Analítica, Nutrición e Bromatoloxía, Campus Terra, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain; beatriz.vazque[email protected] 7 CINBIO, Departmento de Enxeñaría Química, Facultade de Ciencias, Campus Ouresnse, Universidade de Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain; [email protected]al (H.D.); [email protected] (M.D.T.); [email protected] (N.F.-F.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The limitation on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal feed in Europe has critically challenged the rabbit meat industry, which urgently needs to find solutions. A feasible alternative could be using macroalgae in the diet to improve the gut health. This research studied seven species of marine macroalgae in four formats (dehydrated, enzymatically hydrolyzed, aqueous extract, and aqueous extract of hydrolyzed macroalgae) in order to select the most promising ones for their use in rabbit feed. Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility, in vitro caecal gas, total volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, and minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) against common pathogens were studied. All S. latissima products showed high caecal fermentability and VFA production, especially in both types of extracts. The H. elongata aqueous extract was remarkable due to its high in vitro butyrate production, which can be of great interest for improving gut health. The MIC results did not indicate any clear inhibition of the pathogens tested. The macroalgae tested appear to have a potentially prebiotic effect, rather than a direct antimicrobial activity. However, these results must be confirmed in vivo, in order to observe the real benefits of feeding macroalgae during the rabbit weaning period. Keywords: in vitro digestibility and gas production; marine macroalgae; microbial inhibitory activity; rabbit; nutrition 1. Introduction Rabbit meat is a valuable niche product in Mediterranean countries such as Spain, France, and Italy, and the EU is the second biggest producer of this foodstuff in the world [1]. This meat is known for its beneficial nutritional properties—as a source of high-quality protein (CP), B group vitamins, and healthy fatty acids—and also for its characteristic taste and tenderness [1–5]. Citation: Al-Soufi, S.; Nicodemus, N.; Carro, M.D.; López-Alonso, M.; Miranda, M.; Muíños, A.; Cegarra, E.; Vázquez-Belda, B.; Domínguez, H.; Torres, M.D.; et al. Marine Macroalgae in Rabbit Nutrition: In Vitro Digestibility, Caecal Fermentability and Microbial Inhibitory Activity of Seven Macroalgae Species from Galicia (NW Spain). Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture13101995 Academic Editor: Jun He Received: 22 September 2023 Revised: 10 October 2023 Accepted: 11 October 2023 Published: 13 October 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 2 of 21 In Europe, the rabbit industry is undergoing a critical period because of the gradual reduction in the consumption of this type of meat and the many structural weaknesses in the production system [1,6]. Moreover, the limitation on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal production produced in Europe in the last years led to an increase in rabbit mortality in many farms, often making production almost economically unsustainable [7,8]. In this respect, the main challenge in rabbit production is to maintain gut health in the rabbits during the post-weaning period [9–11], when the digestive tract is very vulnerable and susceptible to the proliferation of bacterial pathogens (e.g., Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli) and parasitic protozoa (e.g., coccidians) [12]. In this context, alternatives to antibiotics that improve the gut health and resilience of rabbits to pathogens are required [6], and dietary strategies are especially key in the post-weaning period [13,14]. The addition of marine macroalgae to rabbit diets is a very promising alternative approach, providing numerous benefits that have already been demonstrated in other animal production systems (for reviews, see [6,15–18]). Marine macroalgae are classified into brown (Phaeophyta), green (Chlorophyta), and red macroalgae (Rhodophyta) [19,20]. Macroalgae have a particular nutritional make-up that is very different from that of most animal feeds, although the composition varies widely across species [21]. They contain high levels of minerals and vitamins, moderate or low levels of fat, although they are usually rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), polyphenolic compounds, and a variable protein level [22–24]. In addition, macroalgae show great potential as animal feed due to their high contents of dietary fibre (25–75% of dry matter (DM)) [25,26] that includes insoluble and soluble fibre. The insoluble fibre, which is composed of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin, is poorly fermented [25,26]. The soluble fibre is mainly composed of carbohydrates such as alginates, laminarins, and fucoidans in brown macroalgae, of ulvans and sulphated galactans in green macroalgae, and of agars and carrageenans in red macroalgae [27–29]. These polysaccharides are not generally digested in the small intestine of farm animals and can therefore be either partly or fully fermented in the large intestine. Fermentation of soluble fibre by gut microbiota produces different gases and metabolites like lactic acid and volatile fatty acids (VFA), which modulate the gut environment [6,30]. It is therefore important to determine how macroalgae are fermented, because this process determines their potential prebiotic effects [31– 33]. In addition, some macroalgae components may have antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties, and it has been suggested that including them in livestock diets could potentially improve meat quality [22,23]. In summary, feeding macroalgae could improve gut health in farm animals and therefore promote nutrient absorption, animal growth, disease protection, and animal welfare [20,34]. Moreover, the inclusion of macroalgae in animal feed has many environmentally related benefits (for reviews, see [6,20,34]), as their production does not require fresh water, fertilization, or arable land [35] and it provides many ecosystem services [36]. The Atlantic coast of Galicia (north-western Spain) is a privileged enclave for macroalgae production, as it hosts more than 700 species with very high production rates [37,38]. Numerous companies in the region either harvest or cultivate macroalgae in a sustainable manner for human consumption [39], and during processing each company accumulates more than 40,000 kg of macroalgal discards every year that cannot be marketed. Recycling these discards in animal feeding, following a circular economy approach, would add value to the macroalgae industry and provide a high-quality ingredient for animal feed [37,40], including rabbit feed [6]. This approach would reinforce both the macroalgae and rabbit production sectors, and could also be used as a marketing strategy to increase rabbit meat consumption by environmentally responsible consumers [40]. Despite the aforementioned benefits, experience regarding the inclusion of macroalgae in animal feed remains scarce, especially in the case of rabbit production. In addition, the great diversity of marine macroalgae makes correct characterization of their properties necessary before their inclusion in animal feed. The objective of this study was therefore to characterize 19 products obtained from seven macroalgae species from the Galician Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 3 of 21 coast, by analyzing their chemical composition, in vitro digestibility, and caecal fermentation, and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), in order to assess their potential benefits in rabbit health. The ultimate aim was to select the most promising macroalgae for further in vivo evaluation. 2. Materials and Methods Data collection was carried out according to Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, and the trial complied with the Spanish legislation on animal care (RD 53/2013). The procedures were approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain (protocol code 2021-002, approved 24 February 2021). 2.1. Macroalgae Products A total of 19 samples of macroalgae products were tested, including 7 species and 4 different types of macroalgae products. All samples were provided by Porto-Muiños S.L. (Cerceda, La Coruña, Spain) and were sustainably harvested or cultivated on the Atlantic coast of Galicia (NW Spain). The macroalgae species were selected according to different criteria (Table 1). Some were chosen because they are either already cultivated in Galicia (Saccharina latissima) or potentially cultivable in the short term (Himanthalia elongata, Undaria pinnatifida, and Ulva spp.), and therefore their long-term production is guaranteed without relying on harvesting of wild populations [39,41]. Another criterion was that the industrial processing of the macroalgae produces discards that could be used for animal feed, thereby adding value to these industries and promoting a circular-economy strategy [6,40]. Other macroalgae like Fucus vesiculosus and Mastocarpus stellatus are highly abundant, but have little commercial value, and their use in animal feed could improve their market value. Himanthalia elongata has already been identified as a valuable ingredient for livestock diets [23] and also has potential benefits on human health [42]. Finally, Ulva spp. can improve gut health and productive performance of rabbits [24,43]. Table 1. Classification, selection criteria, and type of product tested for each macroalgae. Name Group Selection Criteria Type of Sample Tested Saccharina latissima Sugar kelp Brown Cultivated. Long-term future. Produces discards - Dehydrated - Hydrolyzed - Aqueous extract - Hydrolyzed aqueous extract Fucus vesiculosus Fucus Brown Harvested. Abundant and underexploited - Dehydrated - Hydrolyzed - Hydrolyzed aqueous extract Himanthalia elongata Sea spaghetti Brown Harvested, potentially cultivable. Produces discards. Proven benefits - Dehydrated - Hydrolyzed - Aqueous extract Undaria pinnatifida Wakame Brown Harvested, potentially cultivable. Longterm future. Produces discards - Dehydrated - Hydrolyzed - Aqueous extract Laminaria ochroleuca Kombu Brown Harvested. Produces discards - Hydrolyzed - Hydrolyzed aqueous extract Ulva spp. Sea lettuce Green Harvested, potentially cultivable. Longterm future. Very abundant. Produces discards. Proven benefits - Dehydrated - Hydrolyzed - Hydrolyzed aqueous extract Mastocarpus stellatus Star shaped moss Red Harvested. Very abundant - Hydrolyzed aqueous extract Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 4 of 21 The selected macroalgae were tested in four different formats (Table 1) obtained after following various industrial processes: dehydrated, enzymatically hydrolyzed, aqueous extract, and aqueous extract of hydrolyzed macroalgae. The aqueous extracts were prepared with the aim of obtaining the compounds of interest (mainly soluble polysaccharides). Macroalgae are commonly dried to extend their shelf life, and the dehydrated macroalgae tested in this study were obtained by drying the samples at low temperature (<40 °C) for 4–5 days before grinding them in a micro-grinding mill (Komodin K-160 P, Lleal, Granollers, Spain) that rendered powder samples. The selected macroalgae were also subjected to enzymatic hydrolysis to improve both carbohydrates and protein digestibility. To this end, the samples were incubated for 24 h in a water solution (1:15 macroalgae:water; in weight) containing 200 µL/100 mL solution (pH 6, 50 °C) of the enzyme Pectinex Ultra tropical (Novozymes, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), and 200 µL/100 mL solution (pH 8, 55 °C) of the enzyme Alcalase (Sigma Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany). The enzymes were inactivated by raising the temperature to 90 °C for 15 min. Then, the hydrolyzed macroalgae were lyophilized. For the aqueous extraction of the soluble compounds of macroalgae, samples were mixed with water (1:30 m:v) and subjected to autohydrolysis in a Parr pressure reactor operating in a non-isothermal mode up to 160 °C and 110 psi. The supernatant was then collected and dried with a spray dryer (Büchi B-290, Flawil, Switzerland) equipped with a standard cyclone (1.5 mm nozzle). The operating settings were 115 °C inlet temperature, 4 mL/min (pump at 15%) feed solution flow rate, 1050 L/h atomization air flow rate, and 4.1 bar pressure. Finally, the aqueous extract of the enzymatically hydrolyzed macroalgae was obtained, as the enzymatic hydrolysis breaks the cell walls and release compounds of interest. Samples were mixed with water (1:10 ratio) containing the enzyme Celluclast (Novozymes, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) at 4%, and the mixture was incubated at 50 °C for 6 h. The enzyme was inactivated by raising the temperature to 90 °C for 15 min. The supernatant was then dried and ground as commented before. Different products were obtained for each macroalgae species, depending on its characteristics and commercial interest. 2.2. In Vitro Digestibility The in vitro ileal and faecal digestibility of dry matter (DM) and the faecal digestibility of crude protein (CP) were determined in all samples as previously described [44,45], using the adapted Ankom bags method [46]. Briefly, 0.5 g of each sample was weighed and placed in an Ankom® filter bag (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY, USA). Bags were introduced in a DaisyII Incubator jar and incubated first with a HCl + pepsin solution (0.25 g pepsin/g sample, pepsin from porcine gastric mucosa P7000-100G, Sigma, Darmstadt, Germany) for 2 h (step 1: stomach), then with a pancreatin solution (1 g pancreatin/g sample, pancreatin from porcine pancreas P7545-100G, Sigma, Darmstadt, Germany) for 3 h 30 min (step 2: small intestine), and finally with Viscozyme for 16 h (step 3: caecum). The weight of the residues obtained in steps 2 and 3 were used to determine the in vitro ileal (ivIDMd) and faecal DM (ivFDMd) digestibility, respectively. The faecal digestibility of CP (ivFCPd) was determined by analyzing the nitrogen (N) content in the final residue obtained after step 3. Sugar beet pulp (SBP) and untreated cereal straw were selected as reference samples for highly and poorly fermentable sources of fibre, respectively, and were subjected to the in vitro procedures described previously. 2.3. Estimation of Nutritional Value The nutritional value of the samples was estimated from the chemical composition and the ivFDMd, as described for rabbit feed [47]. The corresponding equations are generally used for animal feed but not for individual ingredients, and the estimates obtained are therefore only indicative, although they helped in ranking the different macroalgae products. The following equations [47] were used to estimate the apparent faecal digestibility of DM (DMd) and of gross energy (GEd), and the digestible energy content (DE): Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 5 of 21 DMd = −0.019 + 0.98 × (ivFDMd/100) GEd = −0.003 + 0.95 × (ivFDMd/100) DE (MJ/kg DM) = 1.63 + 15.0 × (ivFDMd/100). 2.4. In Vitro Caecal Fermentation and VFA Production The potential fermentability of all samples in the caecum was assessed by measuring the in vitro gas production after the incubation of samples with caecal inoculum from rabbits as described by Abad-Guamán et al. [48]. The insoluble residues obtained after the 2step in vitro DM digestibility procedure of the macroalgae products were also incubated in vitro when their ivIDMd was below 93%, as there was not enough residue for samples having greater ivIDMd values. Samples (200 mg DM) were accurately weighted into 60 mL fermentation vials. A total of four unsexed crossbred hybrid rabbits (New Zealand White × Californian, V × R line from UPV, Valencia, Spain) weaned at 30 d of age and fed a standard diet (16.1% CP, 42.1% total dietary fibre (TDF), 32.6% neutral detergent fibre (NDF), 9.51% soluble fibre (SF)) were slaughtered by head concussion at 67 days of age and 2.3 ± 0.03 kg body weight, which is the usual market weight in Spain. Consequently, there were 4 replicates like in a previous study [48]. The caeca of the 4 rabbits were immediately separated, 8 g of caecal digesta of each rabbit was carefully weighted and separately mixed with 800 mL of Goering and Van Soest buffer solution [49], and the mixtures were homogenized for 1 min with a domestic blender. Twenty mL of the mixture was immediately added to each vial with the aid of a peristaltic pump (Watson-Marlow 520UIP31; Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group, Cornwall, UK). The vials were sealed with rubber stoppers and incubated at 39 °C. Gas production was measured with a pressure transducer (Wide Range Pressure Meter; Sper Scientific LTD, Scottsdale, AZ, USA) and a plastic syringe at 3, 8, 12, 24, 30, 36, 48, 58, 75, 103, and 119 h. After each measurement, the gas produced was liberated. After 24 h of incubation, 1 mL of the content of each vial was collected by using an insulin syringe and mixed with 80 µL of 10% H2SO4 to stop fermentation. This sample was used to analyze VFA production in the samples that yielded at 48 h of incubation significantly more gas production than the untreated cereal straw used as reference (gas production > 45 mL/g DM). Samples were processed as described by Ocassio-Vega et al. [50] and VFA concentration was measured by gas chromatography [51] using a Pelkin Elmer Autosystem XL gas chromatograph (Perkin Elmer Inc., Shelton, CT, USA) equipped with an automatic injector, detector flame ionization, and a semi-capillary column (TR-FFAP 30 m × 0.53 mm × 1 µm; Supelco, Barcelona, Spain). Each sample (19 macroalgae products + 12 insoluble residues of 2-step in vitro digestibility + 2 reference ingredients) were incubated with each of the 4 caecal inocula to obtain 4 replicates per sample, making a total of 132 vials with substrate. In addition, 8 vials with no substrate (blanks; 2/inoculum) were incubated to correct the amount of gas and VFA for endogenous production at each measurement time. 2.5. Minimal Inhibitory Concentrations (MIC) The antimicrobial potential of the 19 samples of macroalgae products was tested with 6 strains of aerobic pathogenic bacteria (strains acquired from the CECT (Spanish Type Culture Collection, University of Valencia): Escherichia coli (CECT 727 and CETC 434), Salmonella typhimurium (CECT 4594), Salmonella enteritidis (CECT 4300), Listeria monocytogenes (CECT 4032) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CECT 108). The antimicrobial potential was also tested with 6 strains of anaerobic pathogenic bacteria (provided by the CECT): Clostridium perfringens (CECT 376, CECT 486 and CECT 563) and Clostridium difficile (CECT 531, CECT 9136 and CECT 9137). Additionally, 2 aerobic pathogenic bacteria obtained from weaned rabbits were tested: Escherichia coli R1 and R2 (provided by the Escherichia coli Reference Laboratory (LREC, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain). Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 6 of 21 The lyophilized strains of bacteria were reconstituted following the CECT guidelines. Viability, multiplication capacity, and identification were confirmed on selective/differential culture media and under temperature, time, and oxygen conditions suitable for each genus: VRBL-Violet Red Bile Glucose agar for E. coli, SM2-chromID Salmonella chromogenic agar, ALOA-chromogenic agar for Listeria spp., CFC agar for Pseudomonas spp., and Clostridium Reinforced agar for clostridia. The strains were then frozen in tubes with cryoballs in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (−20 °C) until use. The highest concentration of macroalgae products tested in this study (8.2 mg/mL) was selected in order to replicate the in vivo conditions when macroalgae are used in animal feed, with levels up to 2.5% of macroalgae in the diet [21,23,32]. A dilution factor of about 3.28 was assumed due to water consumption, as in rabbits it may be around 1.5 g water/g feed, although this may be higher depending on the type of dietary fibre. The potential beneficial effects of macroalgae in animal/rabbit nutrition were observed at around 1–2% of the diet [21,23,32]. 2.5.1. Aerobic Microorganisms: Broth Dilution Method The method used to assess the antimicrobial potential of the macroalgae products with the aerobic strains was serial microdilution in polystyrene microplates, following the recommendations of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [52]. Aliquots (65 mg) of each sample were weighed and dissolved in 2 mL of 1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), to achieve an initial concentration of 32.5 mg/mL DMSO. In order to remove any impurities present, the diluted samples were filtered through a 0.22 µm filter into sterile tubes. From this initial extract, serial twofold dilutions were made in culture medium (Mueller–Hinton Broth), which is ideal for growth of these bacteria in microplates. Therefore, the concentrations tested ranged from 0.03 to 8.2 mg/mL (0.03, 0.06, 0.13, 0.26, 0.51, 1.02, 2.05, 4.10, and 8.2 mg/mL). The 8 strains of aerobic bacteria tested were diluted in Mueller–Hinton Broth to a concentration of 108 cfu/mL (corresponding to the 0.5 MacFarland standard). For the assay, a 96-well microplate was used for each macroalgae sample. Aliquots (50 µL) of the corresponding macroalgae product dilution and of the bacterial solution were dispensed in each individual well. The DMSO (1:10) was used as a negative control and lactic acid (40%) as a positive control. Duplicate microplates were assessed for each macroalgae product. Microplates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h before interpretation of results. The MIC was determined as the lowest concentration of sample solution that completely inhibited growth of the bacteria in the microdilution wells. 2.5.2. Anaerobic Microorganisms: Agar Dilution Method For the anaerobic bacterial strains, the method used to evaluate the antimicrobial potential of the macroalgae samples was the agar dilution method, following the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [53]. Macroalgae products were tested at 2 different concentrations (6 and 8.2 mg/mL). The samples were weighed (0.32 and 0.20 g, respectively) and dissolved in 2 mL of DMSO/EtOH 50%; and then diluted in 18 mL of Clostridium reinforced agar at 50 °C. Each preparation was thoroughly mixed, transferred to a Petri plate (19 samples × 2 concentrations), and left to solidify completely. Aliquots (2 µL) of each of the 6 Clostridia strains were inoculated in each plate, in duplicate (108 cfu/mL, 0.5 McFarland ABS). Lactic acid (40%) was used as positive control, and an identical plate without macroalgae products was used as negative control with the same Clostridia strains. The plates were incubated in anaerobiosis boxes at 37 °C for 48 h. Duplicate plates were assessed for each macroalgae product and each concentration tested. The results were considered negative if the bacteria were able to grow in the agar containing the macroalgae products and positive if bacterial proliferation was inhibited. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 7 of 21 2.6. Chemical Composition The AOAC (2000) methods were used to determine dry matter (method 934.01), ash (method 942.05), nitrogen (N; method 968.06), TDF (985.29), acid detergent fibre (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) in the macroalgae products and reference ingredients (973.18, ref. [54]). The NDF was determined using the filter bag system [55] (Ankom Technology, New York, NY, USA), with thermo-stable amylase and without any sodium sulphite added. The NDF was corrected for the ash and protein content, as indicated for total dietary fibre, while ADF and ADL were only corrected for the ash content of the ADL residue. The SF was calculated by difference, as TDF–NDF. Crude protein was calculated as N × 5 [56]. The difference 100-ash-CP-TDF was calculated to estimate the potential dietary fibre not retained in TDF (RES), assuming low levels (<10%) of sugars/oligosaccharides, starch, and ether extract in the samples. 2.7. Statistical Analysis Gas production values measured at each time and VFA values at 24 h were corrected for the amount of gas and VFA, respectively, produced in the corresponding blanks to discount the endogenous production from the caecal content used as inoculum [50]. Gas production data were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, including the sample, the time of measurement, and their interaction as fixed effects, and inoculum (donor rabbit) as a random effect. The model was applied using the PROC MIXED procedure in the SAS package (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A heterogeneous compound symmetry structure was fitted as it yielded the lowest value of the Schwarz Bayesian criterion [57]. When the effect of sample or its interaction with the time of measurement was significant, a Dunnett’s test was used to compare the value of each macroalgae product with those of the reference ingredients (untreated cereal straw and SBP). Relationships between gas production at 24 h and chemical composition of samples were tested by linear and quadratic correlation analyses using the CORR and GLM procedures in the SAS package. The VFA production at 24 h was analyzed with a mixed model including the sample as a fixed effect and that of inoculum (donor rabbit) as a random effect. Dunnett’s test was used to compare the value of each macroalgae product with those of the reference ingredients (straw and SBP). 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Chemical Composition The chemical composition of the dehydrated macroalgae varied widely (Table 2). The coefficients of variation ranged from 21% for TDF to 66% for RES (100-ash-CP-TDF). The chemical composition of dehydrated H. elongata was found to be rather similar to that of samples previously collected in Galicia, but dehydrated S. latissima and U. pinnatifida showed different composition (Table 3). As already pointed out, the chemical composition of macroalgae varies depending on geographical location, season, environmental factors, and stressors [21,25,26,58,59]. The chemical composition of both types of extracts was also very variable, with coefficients of variation of 8 for NDF and 106% for SF. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 8 of 21 Table 2. Chemical composition (g/100 g; dry matter basis) of macroalgae products and reference ingredients (untreated cereal straw and sugar beet pulp) 1. Ash CP TDF NDF SF ADF ADL RES RES + SF Dehydrated macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus 23.1 10.6 52.7 31.3 21.4 30.7 14.2 13.6 35.0 Himanthalia elongata 41.4 9.51 41.7 19.4 22.3 17.8 13.3 7.39 29.7 Saccharina latissima 20.8 7.10 43.1 22.6 20.5 10.1 3.63 29.0 49.5 Ulva spp. 27.7 16.4 44.1 21.6 22.5 14.7 7.87 11.8 34.3 Undaria pinnatifida 50.1 14.8 28.6 17.1 11.5 11.6 7.10 6.5 18.0 Hydrolyzed macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus 28.9 10.6 53.2 30.2 23.0 21.3 15.9 7.3 30.3 Himanthalia elongata 45.5 8.92 40.9 15.3 25.6 16.4 12.5 4.7 30.3 Laminaria ochroleuca 43.4 8.36 33.0 11.2 21.8 11.4 3.85 15.2 37.0 Ulva spp. 39.1 13.0 34.1 5.63 28.5 6.07 4.19 13.8 42.3 Undaria pinnatifida 58.2 14.2 21.3 5.80 15.5 5.68 4.66 6.3 21.8 Aqueous extract Fucus vesiculosus 28.7 8.23 10.4 4.83 5.60 4.72 4.32 52.7 58.3 Himanthalia elongata 55.1 3.74 29.9 0.00 29.9 0.14 0.17 11.3 41.2 Saccharina latissima 13.6 3.49 64.7 0.00 64.7 0.00 0.00 18.2 82.9 Undaria pinnatifida 68.7 8.91 18.6 0.26 18.3 0.17 0.16 3.8 22.1 Hydrolyzed extract Fucus vesiculosus 32.0 9.22 29.5 1.61 27.9 1.51 1.29 29.3 57.2 Laminaria ochroleuca 44.4 2.37 2.70 0.54 2.16 0.82 0.77 50.5 53.1 Saccharina latissima 19.3 4.09 2.94 0.00 2.94 0.24 0.18 73.7 76.6 Ulva spp. 34.1 4.88 30.2 0.00 30.2 0.09 0.06 30.8 61.0 Mastocarpus stellatus 31.8 10.4 43.4 2.09 41.3 0.14 0.14 14.4 55.7 Reference ingredients Untreated cereal straw 8.80 2.90 78.1 74.3 3.79 43.8 4.20 10.2 13.9 Sugar beet pulp 4.70 7.99 71.7 36.5 35.2 23.6 1.91 15.6 50.8 1 Crude protein: [Nitrogen] × 5.0. TDF: total dietary fibre. NDF: neutral detergent fibre. SF: soluble fibre (TDF − NDF). ADF: acid detergent fibre. ADL: acid detergent lignin. RES: 100 − (ash + CP + TDF). The ash contents of the dehydrated macroalgae were very high (20.8–50.1% DM), which is consistent with the results reported by other authors for these macroalgae species (Table 3), indicating a much higher mineral content than in terrestrial plants [25]. In this respect, it is important to take into account the mineral content of each macroalgae for incorporation in diets, mainly due to the iodine and heavy metals contents [58]. The CP of the dehydrated macroalgae ranged between 7.10 and 16.4% DM, which is consistent with previous reports (5–15% for brown and 10–25% for green algae [23], and with the values previously obtained for these macroalgae in Galicia (Table 3). Ulva spp. (16.4%) and U. pinnatifida (14.8%) contained almost twice as much protein as SBP (7.99%), and it has been reported that their CP contains relevant proportions of leucine and valine [60,61]. However, CP content in all macroalgae tested was lower than other protein feeds commonly used in livestock feeding, as sunflower meal or soybean meal. In the present study, the TDF content varied depending on the species of macroalgae and the type of extract. Dehydrated macroalgae contained large amounts of TDF (28.6– 52.7%), although not as high as cereal straw (78.1%) or SBP (71.7%). However, in contrast to straw, macroalgae TDF contained approximately equal parts of NDF and SF (NDF: from 17.1 to 31.3% for macroalgae and 74.3% for straw; SF: from 11.6 to 22.5% for macroalgae and 3.79% for straw), being the values of the macroalgae closer to those of SBP (36.5% NDF and 35.2% of SF). Unlike SBP, some dehydrated macroalgae contained remarkable amounts of ADL (3.63–14.2% for macroalgae; 1.91% for SBP), which may be associated Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 9 of 21 with polyphenolic compounds other than lignin (such as phlorotannins), as lignin is only found in red macroalgae [62]. The results for TDF, although very variable, are broadly consistent with previous reports for samples collected in Galicia (Table 3). The results obtained for SF and other components of TDF are not easy to compare with previously published data because of the variable methods used for determination of macroalgae fibre components in different studies [23,25,26]. Table 3. Review of published data for chemical composition (g/100 g; dry matter basis) of the macroalgae tested in this study. Location and Reference Macroalgae Ash Crude Protein Total Dietary Fibre Galicia, Spain [25] Himanthalia elongata 36.4 14.1 37.1 Saccharina latissima 34.8 25.7 30.2 Mastocarpus stellatus 25.0 21.3 31.7 Galicia, Spain [63] Himanthalia elongata 31.0 6.80 39.0 Laminaria ochroleuca 33.0 8.5 45.0 Undaria pinnatifida 35.0 20.5 39.0 Galicia, Spain [42] Himanthalia elongata 33.2 7.50 36.0 The enzymatic treatment of the macroalgae (hydrolyzed macroalgae products) did not substantially change their chemical composition, especially in F. vesiculosus and H. elongata. Both the ash (28.9–58.2%) and CP content (8.36–14.2%) were similar to those of the dehydrated samples. In some cases, there was a slight reduction in TDF content due to a lower NDF (5.63–30.2%) but a higher SF level (15.5–28.5%), as it was observed for Ulva spp. and U. pinnatifida. As expected, both types of extractions influenced the composition of the extract obtained, although in a slightly different way for each macroalgae. No information is available in the literature about the composition of the same extracts for accurate comparisons. The ash content of the extracts ranged from 13.6 to 68.7% DM, and it was numerically higher than that in the corresponding dehydrated macroalgae in most samples. In contrast, the CP content of most extracts was much lower than in the dehydrated macroalgae. For H. elongata and S. latissima, it was around half in the aqueous extract than in the dehydrated macroalgae (decreased from 9.51% to 3.74%, and from 7.10% to 3.49%, respectively); and the CP reduction was much marked for Ulva spp., decreasing from 16.4% in the dehydrated samples to 4.88% in the hydrolyzed extract. In contrast, both aqueous and hydrolyzed extracts of F. vesiculosus contained only slightly lower amounts of CP (8.23 and 9.22%, respectively) than the dehydrated macroalgae (10.6%), and CP reductions in the aqueous extract of U. pinnatifida were intermediate (8.91 and 14.8% for the extract and the dehydrated macroalgae, respectively). These results suggest a high variability between macroalgae in the CP extraction efficiency, even using the same extraction procedure for all samples. In order to analyze the dietary fibre in the different extracts, it is important to take into account the RES fraction (calculated as RES = 100 − (ash + CP + TDF)), which was very high in some extracts. Considering the low fat and sugar contents usually reported for macroalgae [59,64–66], the RES fraction probably contained mainly soluble carbohydrates, which could not be identified, although in some cases they accounted for a high proportion of the macroalgae. The RES fraction would include the SF that is not precipitated by ethanol or other soluble compounds [67]. In brown macroalgae, such as S. latissima, this fraction may correspond to laminarin (1,3-β-D-glucans), which is soluble in water, and alginate (1,4-D-mannuronic acid combined with 1,4-α-L-glucuronic acid), which is soluble at pH between 6 and 9, and/or mannitol [25,68]. These results showed that the standard techniques used to characterize fibre fractions in terrestrial plants do not enable precise quantification of the composition of macroalgae products [25,58,59]. The RES was remarkable in S. latissima (29.0% for dehydrated macroalgae and 73.7% for hydrolyzed extract), F. vesiculosus (52.7 and 29.3% for aqueous and hydrolyzed Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 16 of 21 3.4. Minimal Inhibitory Concentrations Most of the macroalgae products tested did not inhibit the bacterial growth at the maximal concentration tested (8.2 mg/mL. Table 8). Table 8. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC; mg/mL) of the macroalgae products tested against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria 1. EC434 EC727 S. ty S. ent EC R1 EC R2 LM Pse C. per C. dif Dehydrated macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus - - - - - - - - - - Himanthalia elongata 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 - - Saccharina latissima - - - - - - - - - - Ulva spp. - - - - - - - - - - Undaria pinnatifida 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 2.05 8.2 - - Hydrolyzed macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus - - - - - - - - - - Himanthalia elongata - - - - - - - - - - Laminaria ochroleuca - - 8.2 8.2 - 8.2 8.2 8.2 - - Ulva spp. - - - - - - 8.2 - - - Undaria pinnatifida - - - - - - - - - - Aqueous extract Fucus vesiculosus - - - - - - - - - - Himanthalia elongata - - - - - - - - - - Saccharina latissima - - - - - - - - - - Undaria pinnatifida - - - - - - - - - - Hydrolyzed extract Fucus vesiculosus - - - - - - - - - - Laminaria ochroleuca - - - - - - - - - - Saccharina latissima 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 - - Ulva spp. - - - - - - - - - - Mastocarpus stellatus - - - - - - - - - - 1 EC 434: Escherichia coli CECT 434. EC727: Escherichia coli CECT 727. S. ty: Salmonella typhimurium. S. ent: Salmonella enteritidis. EC R1: Escherichia coli R1 (LREC). EC R2: Escherichia coli R2 (LREC). LM: Listeria monocytogenes. Pse: Pseudomonas aeruginosa. C. per: Clostridium perfringens. C. dif: Clostridium difficile. Two of the dehydrated macroalgae (H. elongata and U. pinnatifida) inhibited bacterial growth at the maximal concentration (8.2 mg/mL, except 2.05 mg/mL for U. pinnatifida against LM), but their products did not have the same effect. Previous findings indicate that these macroalgae could have some antimicrobial properties [89,90]. Although it is not known what causes the antimicrobial effect of some macroalgae, it has been mainly attributed to the phenolic compounds [90,91]. In the present study, the extracts were obtained with the objective of increasing digestibility and/or fermentability and concentrating the SF of the macroalgae, so any antimicrobial effect may have disappeared at least partly in these extracts because of the absence of these compounds. Within the macroalgae products, hydrolyzed L. ochroleuca and the hydrolyzed extract of S. latissima also showed inhibitory responses when tested at the maximal concentrations. Unfortunately, a sample of dehydrated L. ochroleuca was not available for testing, and it is possible that it could also show an inhibitory effect. By contrast, dehydrated S. latissima did not show any inhibitory effect, suggesting that the positive effect observed in the hydrolyzed extract may be associated with other compounds concentrated in this macroalgae product [90]. Further studies with different solvents and extracts are required to enable solid conclusions to be reached regarding the potential inhibitory effects of these Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 17 of 21 macroalgae. Nonetheless, the positive results appeared only at the maximal concentration, which would correspond in vivo to an inclusion of the macroalgae at a proportion of 2.5% in the diet. Moreover, it must be taking into account that H. elongata, U. pinnatifida, L. ochroleuca, and S. latissima are brown macroalgae with a high iodine content, which limits the amount that could be included in rabbit feed (Regulation EC 1334/2003). 4. Conclusions Overall, the dehydrated macroalgae tested in this study were notable for their high content of minerals, and especially as an interesting source of dietary fibre, particularly of soluble fibre. The in vitro digestibility and caecal fermentation of dehydrated S. latissima were similar to those obtained for sugar beet pulp. All S. latissima products showed high fermentation potential and VFA production, especially both types of extracts. The H. elongata aqueous extract was remarkable due to its high in vitro butyrate production that can be of great interest for improving gut health. The MIC results did not indicate any clear inhibition of the pathogens tested by the macroalgae products. Based on our findings, the macroalgae tested appear to have a potentially prebiotic effect, rather than a direct antimicrobial activity. However, these results must be confirmed in vivo, in order to observe the real benefits of feeding macroalgae during the rabbit weaning period. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.G., M.L.-A., N.N. and A.M.; methodology, J.G., M.D.C., B.V.-B., H.D., M.D.T. and N.F.-F.; formal analysis, J.G.; investigation, S.A.-S., N.N., M.L.-A., M.M., B.V.-B., H.D., M.D.T. and J.G.; resources, E.C., A.M., M.L.-A. and J.G.; data curation, S.A.-S., N.N., B.V.-B., H.D. and N.F.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.-S., M.L.-A. and J.G.; writing— review and editing, S.A.-S., N.N., M.D.C., M.L.-A., M.M. and J.G.; supervision, M.L.-A. and J.G.; project administration, E.C., A.M., M.L.-A. and J.G.; funding acquisition, E.C., A.M., M.L.-A. and J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was carried out within the innovation project TIRAC, co-financed by 80% by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) of the European Union and by 20% by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, within the framework of the National Rural Development Program 2014–2020. The General Directorate for Rural Development, Innovation and Agrifood Training (DGDRIFA) is the authority in charge of applying this aid. Budget: EUR 492,580.38. Total grant: EUR 485,043.58. Funding number: 2020-PN216 (O00000226e2000044671). Institutional Review Board Statement: The animal study protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain (protocol code 2021-002, approved 24 February 2021). Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to César Núñez (student), Raquel del Pozo (technician) for their contribution in the laboratory, and Carlos Rodríguez (head of the laboratory). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Cullere, M.; Dalle Zotte, A. Rabbit Meat Production and Consumption: State of Knowledge and Future Perspectives. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.029. 2. Dalle Zotte, A. Perception of Rabbit Meat Quality and Major Factors Influencing the Rabbit Carcass and Meat Quality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 75, 11–32. 3. Szendro, Z.; Dalle Zotte, A. Effect of Housing Conditions on Production and Behaviour of Growing Meat Rabbits: A Review. Livest. Sci. 2011, 137, 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.11.012. 4. Cesari, V.; Zucali, M.; Bava, L.; Gislon, G.; Tamburini, A.; Toschi, I. Environmental Impact of Rabbit Meat: The Effect of Production Efficiency. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.011. 5. Petracci, M.; Soglia, F.; Leroy, F. Rabbit Meat in Need of a Hat-Trick: From Tradition to Innovation (and Back). Meat Sci. 2018, 146, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.08.003. 6. Al-Soufi, S.; García, J.; Muíños, A.; López-Alonso, M. Marine Macroalgae in Rabbit Nutrition—A Valuable Feed in Sustainable Farming. Animals 2022, 12, 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182346. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 18 of 21 7. Attia, Y.A.; Hamed, R.S.; Abd El-Hamid, A.E.; Al-Harthi, M.A.; Shahba, H.A.; Bovera, F. Performance, Blood Profile, Carcass and Meat Traits and Tissue Morphology in Growing Rabbits Fed Mannanoligosaccharides and Zinc-Bacitracin Continuously or Intermittently. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2015, 33, 85–101. 8. Solans, L.; Arnal, J.L.; Sanz, C.; Benito, A.; Chacón, G.; Alzuguren, O.; Fernández, A.B. Rabbit Enteropathies on Commercial Farms in the Iberian Peninsula: Etiological Agents Identified in 2018–2019. Animals 2019, 9, 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121142. 9. Fortun-Lamothe, L.; Boullier, S. A Review on the Interactions between Gut Microflora and Digestive Mucosal Immunity. Possible Ways to Improve the Health of Rabbits. Livest. Sci. 2007, 107, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.09.005. 10. Carabaño, R.; Badiola, I.; Chamorro, S.; García, J. New Trends in Rabbit Feeding: Influence of Nutrition. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 6, 15–25. 11. Zemzmi, J.; Ródenas, L.; Blas, E.; Najar, T.; Pascual, J.J. Characterisation and in Vitro Evaluation of Fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum) Seed Gum as a Potential Prebiotic in Growing Rabbit Nutrition. Animals 2020, 10, 1041. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061041. 12. Badiola, I.; Perez De Rozas, A.; Gonzalez, J.; Aloy, N.; García, J.; Carabaño, R. Recent Advances in ERE in Growing Rabbits (Invited Paper). In Proceedings of the 11th World Rabbit Congress, Qingdao, China, 15–18 June 2016; pp. 491–502. 13. Gidenne, T.; García, J. Nutritional Strategies Improving the Digestive Health of the Weaned Rabbit. In Recent Advances in Rabbit Sciences; ILVO: Melle, Belgium, 2006; pp. 229–238. 14. Puón-Peláez, X.-H.; McEwan, N.; Olvera-Ramírez, A. Epizootic Rabbit Enteropathy (ERE): A Review of Current Knowledge. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2018, 14, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n36p137. 15. Falcão-e-Cunha, L.; Castro-Solla, L.; Maertens, L.; Marounek, M.; Pinheiro, V.; Freire, J.; Mourão, J.L. Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Rabbit Feeding: A Review. World Rabbit Sci. 2007, 15, 127–140. 16. Saettone, V.; Biasato, I.; Radice, E.; Schiavone, A.; Bergero, D.; Meineri, G. State-of-the-Art of the Nutritional Alternatives to the Use of Antibiotics in Humans and Monogastric Animals. Animals 2020, 10, 2199. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122199. 17. López-Gálvez, G.; López-Alonso, M.; Pechova, A.; Mayo, B.; Dierick, N.; Gropp, J. Alternatives to Antibiotics and Trace Elements (Copper and Zinc) to Improve Gut Health and Zootechnical Parameters in Piglets: A Review. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2021, 271, 114727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114727. 18. Corino, C.; Di Giancamillo, A.; Modina, S.C.; Rossi, R. Prebiotic Effects of Seaweed Polysaccharides in Pigs. Animals 2021, 11, 1573. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061573. 19. Maghin, F. Biological Functions and Health Promoting Effects of Brown Seaweeds in Swine Nutrition. J. Dairy Vet. Anim. Res. 2014, 1, 2–5. https://doi.org/10.15406/jdvar.2014.01.00005. 20. Corino, C.; Modina, S.C.; Di Giancamillo, A.; Chiapparini, S.; Rossi, R. Seaweeds in Pig Nutrition. Animals 2019, 9, 1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121126. 21. Makkar, H.P.S.; Tran, G.; Heuzé, V.; Giger-Reverdin, S.; Lessire, M.; Lebas, F.; Ankers, P. Seaweeds for Livestock Diets: A Review. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2016, 212, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.09.018. 22. Hamed, I.; Özogul, F.; Özogul, Y.; Regenstein, J.M. Marine Bioactive Compounds and Their Health Benefits: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2015, 14, 446–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12136. 23. Morais, T.; Inácio, A.; Coutinho, T.; Ministro, M.; Cotas, J.; Pereira, L.; Bahcevandziev, K. Seaweed Potential in the Animal Feed: A Review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/JMSE8080559. 24. Abu Hafsa, S.H.; Khalel, M.S.; El-Gindy, Y.M.; Hassan, A.A. Nutritional Potential of Marine and Freshwater Algae as Dietary Supplements for Growing Rabbits. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.1928557. 25. Gómez-Ordóñez, E.; Jiménez-Escrig, A.; Rupérez, P. Dietary Fibre and Physicochemical Properties of Several Edible Seaweeds from the Northwestern Spanish Coast. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 2289–2294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.08.005. 26. Holdt, S.L.; Kraan, S. Bioactive Compounds in Seaweed: Functional Food Applications and Legislation. J. Appl. Phycol. 2011, 23, 543–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-010-9632-5. 27. Pereira, L. Biological and Therapeutic Properties of the Seaweed Polysaccharides. Int. Biol. Rev. 2018, 2, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.18103/ibr.v2i2.1762. 28. Salehi, B.; Sharifi-rad, J.; Seca, A.M.L.; Pinto, D.C.G.A. Current Trends on Seaweeds: Looking at Chemical Composition, Phytopharmacology, and Cosmetic Applications. Molecules 2019, 24, 4182. 29. De Borba Gurpilhares, D.; Cinelli, L.P.; Simas, N.K.; Pessoa, A.; Sette, L.D. Marine Prebiotics: Polysaccharides and Oligosaccharides Obtained by Using Microbial Enzymes. Food Chem. 2019, 280, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.12.023. 30. Zheng, L.X.; Chen, X.Q.; Cheong, K.L. Current Trends in Marine Algae Polysaccharides: The Digestive Tract, Microbial Catabolism, and Prebiotic Potential. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 151, 344–354. 31. Jimenez-Escrig, A.; Sanchez-Muniz, F.J. Dietary Fibre from Edible Seaweeds: Chemical Structure, Physicochemical Properties and Effects on Cholesterol Metabolism. Nutr. Res. 2000, 20, 585–598. 32. Evans, F.D.; Critchley, A.T. Seaweeds for Animal Production Use. J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-0162-9. 33. Demarco, M.; Oliveira de Moraes, J.; Matos, Â.P.; Derner, R.B.; de Farias Neves, F.; Tribuzi, G. Digestibility, Bioaccessibility and Bioactivity of Compounds from Algae. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 121, 114–128. 34. Øverland, M.; Mydland, L.T.; Skrede, A. Marine Macroalgae as Sources of Protein and Bioactive Compounds in Feed for Monogastric Animals. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9143. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 19 of 21 35. Costa, M.; Cardoso, C.; Afonso, C.; Bandarra, N.M.; Prates, J.A.M. Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives of the Use of Seaweeds for Livestock Production and Meat Quality: A Systematic Review. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 105, 1075–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13509. 36. Jagtap, A.S.; Meena, S.N. Seaweed Farming: A Perspective of Sustainable Agriculture and Socio-Economic Development. In Natural Resources Conservation and Advances for Sustainability; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 493–501. 37. Rey-Crespo, F.; López-Alonso, M.; Miranda, M. The Use of Seaweed from the Galician Coast as a Mineral Supplement in Organic Dairy Cattle. Animal 2014, 8, 580–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113002474. 38. Tasende, M.G.; Peteiro, C. Explotación de Las Macroalgas de Estudio Hacia Una Gestión Marinas: Galicia Como Caso Sostenible de Los Recursos. Ambienta 2015, 111, 116–132. 39. Peteiro, C.; Salinas, J.M.; Freire, Ó.; Fuertes, C. Cultivation of the Autoctonous Seaweed ’Laminaria Saccharina’ off the Galician Coast (NW Spain): Production and Features of the Sporophytes for an Annual and Biennial Harvest. Thalassas 2006, 22, 45–53. 40. Fraga-Corral, M.; Ronza, P.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Pereira, A.G.; Losada, A.P.; Prieto, M.A.; Quiroga, M.I.; Simal-Gandara, J. Aquaculture as a Circular Bio-Economy Model with Galicia as a Study Case: How to Transform Waste into Revalorized by-Products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.11.026. 41. Freitas, J.R.C.; Salinas Morrondo, J.M.; Cremades Ugarte, J. Saccharina latissima (Laminariales, Ochrophyta) Farming in an Industrial IMTA System in Galicia (Spain). J. Appl. Phycol. 2016, 28, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-015-0526-4. 42. Lopez-Santamarina, A.; Cardelle-Cobas, A.; del Carmen Mondragon, A.; Sinisterra-Loaiza, L.; Miranda, J.M.; Cepeda, A. Evaluation of the Potential Prebiotic Effect of Himanthalia elongata, an Atlantic Brown Seaweed, in an in Vitro Model of the Human Distal Colon. Food Res. Int. 2022, 156, 111156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111156. 43. El-banna, S.G.; Hassan, A.A.; Okab, A.B.; Koriem, A.A.; Ayoub, M.A. Effect of Feeding Diets Supplemented with Seaweed on Growth Performance and Some Blood Hematological and Biochemical Characteristics of Male Baladi Rabbits. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Rabbit Production in Hot Climates, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, 24 February 2005; Volume 382, pp. 373–382. 44. Ramos, M.A.; Carabaño, R.; Boisen, S.; Ramos, M.A. An in Vitro Method for Estimating Digestibility in Rabbits. In Proceedings of the 5th World Rabbit Congress, Corvallis, OR, USA, 25–30 July 1992; pp. 938–946. 45. Carabaño, R.; Nicodemus, N.; García, J.; Xiccato, G.; Trocino, A.; Pascual, J.J.; Falcao-e-Cunha, L.; Maertens, L. In Vitro Analysis, an Accurate Tool to Estimate Dry Matter Digestibiity in Rabbits. Intraand Inter-Laboratory Variability. World Rabbit Sci. 2008, 16, 195–203. 46. Abad, R.; Ibáñez, M.A.; Carabaño, R.; García, J. Quantification of Soluble Fibre in Feedstuffs for Rabbits and Evaluation of the Interference between the Determinations of Soluble Fibre and Intestinal Mucin. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2013, 182, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.001. 47. Villamide, M.J.; Carabaño, R.; Maertens, L.; Pascual, J.; Gidenne, T.; Falcao-E-Cunha, L.; Xiccato, G. Prediction of the Nutritional Value of European Compound Feeds for Rabbits by Chemical Components and In Vitro Analysis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 150, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.09.007. 48. Abad-Guamán, R.; Larrea-Dávalos, J.A.; Carabaño, R.; García, J.; Carro, M.D. Influence of Inoculum Type (Ileal, Caecal and Faecal) on the In Vitro Fermentation of Different Sources of Carbohydrates in Rabbits. World Rabbit Sci. 2018, 26, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2018.9726. 49. Goering, H.K.; Van, P.J. Forage Fiber Analyses; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1975; pp. 387–598. 50. Ocasio-Vega, C.; Abad-Guamán, R.; Delgado, R.; Carabaño, R.; Carro, M.D.; García, J. In Vitro Caecal Fermentation of Carbohydrate-Rich Feedstuffs in Rabbits as Affected by Substrate Pre-Digestion and Donors’ Diet. World Rabbit Sci. 2018, 26, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2018.7854. 51. Carro, M.D.; Lebzien, P.; Rohr, K.; Ftir Trererniihnrng, I. Influence of Yeast Culture on the in Vitro Fermentation (Rusitec) of Diets Containing Variable Portions of Concentrates. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1992, 37, 209–220. 52. M07-A9; Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2012; Approved Standard—9° Ed; Volume 32, pp. 1–88. 53. M11-A6; Methods for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Anaerobic Bacteria. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2004; Approved Standard—6° Ed; Volume 24, pp. 1–48. 54. Möller, J.J.; Boonnayanont, K.; Danier, J.; Egert, M.; Fütö, K.; Horst, H.; Hüther, L.; Janjira, S.; Kongchuensin, R.; Korol, W.; et al. Gravimetric Determination of Acid Detergent Fiber and Lignin in Feed: Interlaboratory Study. J. AOAC Int. 2009, 92, 74–90. 55. Mertens, D.R.; Allen, M.; Main, D.; Thiex, N.J. Gravimetric Determination of Amylase-Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds with Refluxing in Beakers or Crucibles: Collaborative Study Guidance on Obtaining Defensible Test Portions View Project Databases View Project. J. AOAC Int. 2002, 2, 540. 56. Lourenço, S.O.; Barbarino, E.; De-Paula, J.C.; Otávio, L.; Pereira, S.; Lanfer Marquez, U.M. Amino Acid Composition, Protein Content and Calculation of Nitrogen-to-Protein Conversion Factors for 19 Tropical Seaweeds. Phycol. Res. 2002, 50, 233–241. 57. Littell, R.C.; Henry, P.R.; Ammerman, C.B. Statistical Analysis of Repeated Measures Data Using SAS Procedures 1,2. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 1216–1231. 58. Garcia-Vaquero, M.; Rajauria, G.; Miranda, M.; Sweeney, T.; Lopez-Alonso, M.; O’doherty, J. Seasonal Variation of the Proximate Composition, Mineral Content, Fatty Acid Profiles and Other Phytochemical Constituents of Selected Brown Macroalgae. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/MD19040204. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 20 of 21 59. Bikker, P.; Stokvis, L.; van Krimpen, M.M.; van Wikselaar, P.G.; Cone, J.W. Evaluation of Seaweeds from Marine Waters in Northwestern Europe for Application in Animal Nutrition. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2020, 263, 114460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114460. 60. Taboada, C.; Millan, R.; Miguez, I. Evaluation of Marine Algae Undaria pinnatifida and Porphyra purpurea as a Food Supplement: Composition, Nutritional Value and Effect of Intake on Intestinal, Hepatic and Renal Enzyme Activities in Rats. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1863–1868. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.5981. 61. Laramore, S.E.; Wills, P.S.; Hanisak, M.D. Seasonal Variation in the Nutritional Profile of Ulva lactuca Produced in a Land-Based IMTA System. Aquac. Int. 2022, 30, 3067–3079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-022-00950-3. 62. Martone, P.T.; Estevez, J.M.; Lu, F.; Ruel, K.; Denny, M.W.; Somerville, C.; Ralph, J. Discovery of Lignin in Seaweed Reveals Convergent Evolution of Cell-Wall Architecture. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19, 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.12.031. 63. Fernández-Segovia, I.; Lerma-García, M.J.; Fuentes, A.; Barat, J.M. Characterization of Spanish Powdered Seaweeds: Composition, Antioxidant Capacity and Technological Properties. Food Res. Int. 2018, 111, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.05.037. 64. Rouxel, C.; Crouan, K. Variations de La Composition Chimique de l’algue Brune Himanthalia elongata (L.) Gray Durant Le Printemps. Acta Bot. Gall. 1995, 142, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.1995.10515696. 65. Gudiel Urbano, M.; Goñi, I. Bioavailability of Nutrients in Rats Fed on Edible Seaweeds, Nori (Porphyra tenera) and Wakame (Undaria pinnatifida), as a Source of Dietary Fibre. Food Chem. 2002, 76, 281–286. 66. Neto, R.T.; Marçal, C.; Queirós, A.S.; Abreu, H.; Silva, A.M.S.; Cardoso, S.M. Screening of Ulva Rigida, Gracilaria sp., Fucus vesiculosus and Saccharina latissima as Functional Ingredients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2987. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19102987. 67. Rupérez, P.; Saura-Calixto, F. Dietary Fibre and Physicochemical Properties of Edible Spanish Seaweeds. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2001, 212, 349–354. 68. Rupérez, P.; Ahrazem, O.; Leal, J.A. Potential Antioxidant Capacity of Sulfated Polysaccharides from the Edible Marine Brown Seaweed Fucus vesiculosus. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 840–845. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf010908o. 69. Lopez-Santamarina, A.; Miranda, J.M.; Del Carmen Mondragon, A.; Lamas, A.; Cardelle-Cobas, A.; Franco, C.M.; Cepeda, A. Potential Use of Marine Seaweeds as Prebiotics: A Review. Molecules 2020, 25, 1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25041004. 70. Juul, L.; Stødkilde, L.; Ingerslev, A.K.; Bruhn, A.; Jensen, S.K.; Dalsgaard, T.K. Digestibility of Seaweed Protein from Ulva sp. and Saccharina latissima in Rats. Algal Res. 2022, 63, 102644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102644. 71. Kazir, M.; Abuhassira, Y.; Robin, A.; Nahor, O.; Luo, J.; Israel, A.; Golberg, A.; Livney, Y.D. Extraction of Proteins from Two Marine Macroalgae, Ulva Sp. and Gracilaria sp., for Food Application, and Evaluating Digestibility, Amino Acid Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Protein Concentrates. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 87, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.07.047. 72. Schiener, P.; Black, K.D.; Stanley, M.S.; Green, D.H. The Seasonal Variation in the Chemical Composition of the Kelp Species Laminaria digitata, Laminaria hyperborea, Saccharina latissima and Alaria esculenta. J. Appl. Phycol. 2015, 27, 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-014-0327-1. 73. Sharma, S.; Horn, S.J. Enzymatic Saccharification of Brown Seaweed for Production of Fermentable Sugars. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 213, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.090. 74. Rochet, V.; Bernalier, A. Utilization of Algal Polysaccharides by Human Colonic Bacteria, in Axenic Culture or in Association with Hydrogenotrophic Microorganisms. Reprod. Nutr. Develpment 1997, 37, 221–229. 75. Williams, A.G.; Withers, S.; Sutherland, A.D. The Potential of Bacteria Isolated from Ruminal Contents of Seaweed-Eating North Ronaldsay Sheep to Hydrolyse Seaweed Components and Produce Methane by Anaerobic Digestion in Vitro. Microb. Biotechnol. 2012, 6, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12000. 76. Abad-Guamán, R.; Carabaño, R.; Gómez-Conde, M.S.; García, J. Effect of Type of Fiber, Site of Fermentation, and Method of Analysis on Digestibility of Soluble and Insoluble Fiber in Rabbits. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 2860–2871. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8767. 77. Kellogg, J.; Grace, M.H.; Lila, M.A. Phlorotannins from Alaskan Seaweed Inhibit Carbolytic Enzyme Activity. Mar. Drugs 2014, 12, 5277–5294. https://doi.org/10.3390/md12105277. 78. Gidenne, T.; Fortun-Lamothe, L. Feeding Strategy for Young Rabbits around Weaning: A Review of Digestive Capacity and Nutritional Needs. Anim. Sci. 2002, 75, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1357729800052942. 79. de la Moneda, A.; Carro, M.D.; Weisbjerg, M.R.; Roleda, M.Y.; Lind, V.; Novoa-Garrido, M.; Molina-Alcaide, E. Variability and Potential of Seaweeds as Ingredients of Ruminant Diets: An In Vitro Study. Animals 2019, 9, 851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100851. 80. Pandey, D.; Hansen, H.H.; Dhakal, R.; Aryal, N.; Rai, S.P.; Sapkota, R.; Nielsen, M.O.; Novoa-Garrido, M.; Khanal, P. Interspecies and Seasonal Variations in Macroalgae from the Nordic Region: Chemical Composition and Impacts on Rumen Fermentation and Microbiome Assembly. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132456. 81. Sweeney, T.; Dillon, S.; Fanning, J.; Egan, J.; O’Shea, C.J.; Figat, S.; Gutierrez, J.J.M.; Mannion, C.; Leonard, F.; O’Doherty, J.V. Evaluation of Seaweed-Derived Polysaccharides on Indices of Gastrointestinal Fermentation and Selected Populations of Microbiota in Newly Weaned Pigs Challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2011, 165, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.02.010. 82. Guilloteau, P.; Martin, L.; Eeckhaut, V.; Ducatelle, R.; Zabielski, R.; Van Immerseel, F. From the Gut to the Peripheral Tissues: The Multiple Effects of Butyrate. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2010, 23, 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422410000247. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1995 21 of 21 83. Ocasio-Vega, C.; Delgado, R.; Abad-Guamán, R.; Carabaño, R.; Carro, M.D.; Menoyo, D.; García, J. The Effect of Cellobiose on the Health Status of Growing Rabbits Depends on the Dietary Level of Soluble Fiber. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 1806–1817. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky106. 84. Jiménez-Escrig, A.; Gómez-Ordóñez, E.; Tenorio, M.D.; Rupérez, P. Antioxidant and Prebiotic Effects of Dietary Fiber Co-Travelers from Sugar Kombu in Healthy Rats. J. Appl. Phycol. 2013, 25, 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-012-9884-3. 85. Seong, H.; Bae, J.H.; Seo, J.S.; Kim, S.A.; Kim, T.J.; Han, N.S. Comparative Analysis of Prebiotic Effects of Seaweed Polysaccharides Laminaran, Porphyran, and Ulvan Using In Vitro Human Fecal Fermentation. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 57, 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2019.04.014. 86. Lynch, M.B.; Sweeney, T.; Callan, J.J.; O’Sullivan, J.T.; O’Doherty, J.V. The Effect of Dietary Laminaria Derived Laminarin and Fucoidan on Intestinal Microflora and Volatile Fatty Acid Concentration in Pigs. Livest. Sci. 2010, 133, 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.052. 87. Devillé, C.; Gharbi, M.; Dandrifosse, G.; Peulen, O. Study on the Effects of Laminarin, a Polysaccharide from Seaweed, on Gut Characteristics. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 1717–1725. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2901. 88. Leonard, S.G.; Sweeney, T.; Bahar, B.; Lynch, B.P.; O’Doherty, J.V. Effects of Dietary Seaweed Extract Supplementation in Sows and Post-Weaned Pigs on Performance, Intestinal Morphology, Intestinal Microflora and Immune Status. Br. J. Nutr. 2011, 106, 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511000997. 89. Ibtissam, C.; Hassane, R.; José, M.L.; Francisco, D.S.J.; Antonio, G.V.J.; Hassan, B.; Mohamed, K. Screening of Antibacterial Activity in Marine Green and Brown Macroalgae from the Coast of Morocco. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 1258–1262. 90. Silva, A.; Rodrigues, C.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Lourenço-Lopes, C.; Silva, S.A.; Garcia-Perez, P.; Carvalho, A.P.; Domingues, V.F.; Barroso, M.F.; Delerue-Matos, C.; et al. Screening of Bioactive Properties in Brown Algae from the Northwest Iberian Peninsula. Foods 2021, 10, 1915. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081915. 91. Muñoz, R.A.; Santome, S.; León, J.Q. Antibacterial Activity of Hexane and Ethanolic Extracts of Marine Macroalgae of the Bay of Ancón, Lima—Peru. Rev. Investig. Vet. Peru 2020, 31, e17829. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v31i2.17829. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.