Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T11:49:25.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of lambs and steers given monensin with different levels of barley†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. M. J. Horton ,
E. H. Keeler  and
K. A. Bassendowski
G. M. J. Horton
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
E. H. Keeler
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
K. A. Bassendowski
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Get access

Abstract

The effect of barley level and monensin on feedlot performance by lambs and steers was investigated in two experiments. Monensin was given at 0 and 33mg/kg of food in lamb and steer diets, which contained bailey at levels from 300 to 900g/kg. Food consumption by lambs was not affected by monensin but intakes decreased with increasing levels of barley (P < 0·05). Food intake by steers decreased in a linear manner with increasing levels of barley (P < 0·01) and averaged 80g/kg lower when monensin was fed (P < 0·05). Monensin improved lamb gains by 350g/kg (P < 0·001), but had no effect on steer performance. Feeding monensin improved average food efficiency in lambs and steers by 27 and 4%, respectively. Carcass characteristics were not influenced by monensin, but heavier carcasses (P < 0·01) in steers given the high barley rations were also fatter (P < 0·001).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , June 1981 , pp. 267 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Fitzgerald, P. R. and Mansfield, M. E. 1978. Ovine coccidiosis: effect of the antibiotic monensin against Eimeria ninakohlyakimovae and other naturally occurring coccidia of sheep. Am. J. vet. Res. 39: 7–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Forbes, J. M. 1980. Hormones and metabolites in the control of food intake. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.). pp. 145–160. MTP Press, Lancaster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, W. W., Hanks, E. M. and Young, D. C. 1978. Monensin and tylosin in a high energy diet lor finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 47, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, G. M. J., Bassendowski, K. A. and Kieler, E. H. 1980. Digestion and metabolism in lambs and steers fed monensin with different levels of barley. J. Anim. Sci. 50: 997–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, G. M. J. and Stockdale, P. H. G. 1979. Effects ofa amprolium and monensin on oocyst discharge, feed utilization, and ruminal metabolism of lambs with coccidiosis. Am. J. vet. Res. 40: 966–970.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. 1966. The Rumen and its Microbes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. J., Herlugson, M. L., Ojikul, L. B., Cordova, G., Dyer, I. A., Zimmer, P. and Delay, R. 1979. Effect of avoparcin and monensin on feedlot performance of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 1338–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, A. E. Jr, Brown, L. J., Fogg, T. J. and Rossi, R. T. 1979. Effect of monensin on growth, feed efficiency and energy metabolism of lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 1065–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kromann, R. P., Clemens, E. T., and Ray, E. E. 1975. Digestible, metabolizable and net energy values of corn grain and dehydrated alfalfa in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 1752–1758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, T. A. 1970. A study of the effect of supplementing a concentrate diet with roughages of different quality on the performance of Friesian steers. II. Growth rate, efficiency of food conversion and carcass yield. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75: 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1975. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 5, Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. 5th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1976. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 4, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 5th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nockels, C. F., Jackson, D. W. and Berry, B. W. 1978. Optimum level of monensin for fattening lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 47: 788–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poos, M. I., Hanson, T. L. and Klopfenstein, T. J. 1979. Monensin effects on diet digestibility, ruminal protein bypass and microbial protein synthesis. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 1516–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potter, E. L., Raun, A. P., Cooley, C. O., Rathmacher, R. P. and Richardson, L. F. 1976. Effect of monensin on carcass characteristics, carcass composition and efficiency of converting feed to carcass. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 678–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rain, A. P., Cooley, C. O., Potter, E. L., Rathmacher, R. P. and Richardson, L. F. 1976. Effect of monensin on feed efficiency of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 670–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, L. F., Raun, A. P., Potter, E. L., Cooley, C. O. and Rathmacher, R. P. 1976. Effect of monensin on rumen fermentation in vitro and in vivo. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames. la.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. and RILEY. J. G. 1980. Protein levels with and without monensin for finishing steers J. Anim. Sci. 50: 563–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utley, P. R., Newton, G. L., Ritter, R. J. III and McCormick, W. C. 1976. Effects of feeding monensin in combination with zeranol and testosterone-estradiol implants for growing and finishing heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 42: 754–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utley, P. R., Newton, G. L., Wilson, D. M. and McCormick, W. C. 1977. Dry and propionic acid treated-high moisture corn fed with and without monensin to feedlot heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 45: 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar