Additive effects of growth promoting technologies on performance of grazing steers and economics of the wheat pasture enterprise1

Beck, Paul; Hess, Tom; Hubbell, D. S.; Hufstedler, G. D.; Fieser, B. G.; Caldwell, J. D.

doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7203

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mainly because monensin could improve energetic efficiency in the cattle through increased propionic acid production and a reduction in methane production (Erasmus et al, 2008;Neumann et al, 2018). Although the use of virginiamycin as growth promoter for grazing animals is recent, studies have shown that their inclusion in supplements may increase weight gain in grazing animals and improve the efficiency of supplementation programs through increased utilization of nutrients modulating ruminal fermentation (Salinas-Chavira et al, 2009;Nuñez et al, 2013;Beck et al, 2014). The use of monensin and virginiamycin association in beef cattle supplements, to our knowledge, is not yet fully characterized; however, this combination has the potential to maximize nutrient absorption in the rumen and increase animal performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virginiamycin and sodium monensin supplementation for beef cattle on pasture

Maciel

Saturnino

Barbosa³

et al. 2019

Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effects of including virginiamycin (VM), sodium monensin (MON) or the association (VM+MON) in the energetic mineral supplement, on the intake and performance of beef cattle on pasture. Forty Nellore heifers with 24 months of age and initial body weight (BW) of 251.5±16.6kg, were distributed in four treatments in a randomized block design. Treatments consisted of adding VM, MON or VM+MON to the supplement (CONT). Additive concentrations were defined to reach a dose of 40 to 45mg/100kg BW. The herbage allowance was not a limiting factor for the animals’ intake. Supplement intake was lower than expected, with 33.0, 18.8 and 26.3mg per 100kg BW for VM, MON and VM+MON, respectively. Dry matter intake (DMI, mean=2.65% BW) and animal performance were not affected by the inclusion of additives. The average daily gain (ADG) was 0.561kg/animal day-1. The inclusion of additives in energetic mineral supplement does not affect the DMI and the ADG of grazing animals. The variability in supplement intake and daily dose intake of additives may have influenced the performance of the animals. Monensin inclusion presented the less expensive supplementation cost, due to reduction in supplement intake without changing weight gain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virginiamycin and sodium monensin supplementation for beef cattle on pasture

Maciel

Saturnino

Barbosa³

et al. 2019

Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an example, Bagley et al (1988) reported that salinomycin inclusion into a mineral mixture decreased the mineral intake of beef steers from 131 to 65 g/d. Similarly, Beck et al (2014) reported that steers offered a mineral supplement containing monensin had a reduced supplement intake compared with nonsupplemented cohorts (160 vs. 100 g/d, respectively). Lastly, Reffett-Stabel et al (1989) demonstrated that lasalocid and salinomycin supplementation into a mineral mixture to grazing Angus steers decreased the mineral consumption when compared with nonsupplemented cohorts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of supplement type and narasin inclusion on supplement intake by Bos indicus beef bulls grazing a warm-season forage

Cappellozza

Lasmar

Reis

et al. 2018

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of supplement type and narasin inclusion on the frequency and supplement intake of grazing Bos indicus beef bulls. Four hundred animals were ranked by initial BW (383 ± 35 kg) and allocated into one of four paddocks of Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandú (100 animals/paddock). Paddocks were randomly assigned to receive either a mineral salt (MIN) or a protein-energetic supplement (PREN) containing or not narasin (N) for a 90-d period. An individual electronic data capture system with 11 feed bunks was used to individually measure supplement intake and meal frequency in each paddock. The evaluations and analysis of individual intake, frequency of visits to the feeder, and intake per visit (I/V) were performed every 15 d and classified as periods (PR1 through PR6). All data were analyzed as a 2 × 2 factorial design with the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS. A supplement type × N × PR interaction was observed (P < 0.0001) for daily supplement intake. No differences were observed between MIN, whereas PREN had a greater (P ≤ 0.03) supplement intake on PR1 and PR3, but a reduced supplement intake on PR6 compared with PREN + N (P = 0.02). Moreover, no supplement type × N interaction (P = 0.47) or N (P = 0.44) effects were observed for daily supplement intake in the present study. A supplement type × N × PR interaction was detected (P < 0.0001) for the frequency of visits in the feeders. Throughout the experimental period, animals from the MIN + N had a greater (P ≤ 0.02) frequency of visits compared with MIN cohorts. A supplement effect was detected for I/V (P = 0.02), whereas neither a narasin effect (P = 0.74) nor interactions (P ≥ 0.16) were observed. Animals offered PREN had a greater I/V when compared with MIN cohorts (145 vs. 846 g/d for MIN and PREN, respectively; SEM = 16.1). When these data are reported as percentage of days visiting the feeder within each PR, MIN and MIN + N animals visited the feeder for 25.8% and 35.9% of the days, respectively. Conversely, no differences were observed (P = 0.65) in the overall mean visits per PR between PREN and PREN + N (12.8 vs. 12.3 d for PREN and PREN + N, respectively; SEM = 0.195). As percentage of days visiting the feeder, PREN and PREN + N visited the feeder for 85.1% and 81.9% of the days, respectively. In summary, narasin inclusion did not reduce supplement intake, regardless of supplement type, but increased the frequency of visits to the feeder for the MIN treatment.

show abstract

“…Legenda: ¹ CON: mistura mineral sem aditivo; 1800: inclusão de 1800 mg de narasina/kg de mistura mineral; 2750: inclusão de 2750 mg de narasina/kg de mistura mineral; PROT: Suplemento proteinado sem aditivo; PROT 360: inclusão de 360 mg de narasina/kg de suplemento proteinado; ² EPM: erro padrão da média; ³ Contrastes ortogonais, I: CON vs 1800 e 2750, II: 1800 vs 2750, III: CON, 1800 e 2750 vs PROT e PROT 360, IV: PROT vs PROT 360. (BECK et al, 2014;FIESER et al, 2007). Para o presente estudo o produto foi produzido sem a inclusão da monensina, o que pode ter afetado a capacidade de autorregulação de consumo do suplemento, apresentando assim uma ingestão superior a esperada.…”

Section: Análises Estatísticasunclassified

<b>Efeito da narasina sobre o consumo de suplementos minerais e o desempenho de bovinos de corte a pasto</b>

Gobato¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Additive effects of growth promoting technologies on performance of grazing steers and economics of the wheat pasture enterprise1

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

Virginiamycin and sodium monensin supplementation for beef cattle on pasture

Virginiamycin and sodium monensin supplementation for beef cattle on pasture

Effects of supplement type and narasin inclusion on supplement intake by Bos indicus beef bulls grazing a warm-season forage

<b>Efeito da narasina sobre o consumo de suplementos minerais e o desempenho de bovinos de corte a pasto</b>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About