The effect of a monensin ruminal delivery device on performance of cattle grazing pasture.

Abstract

A total of 28 trials utilizing 2,262 steers and heifers were conducted to evaluate a sustained monensin2 ruminal delivery device (RDD) on the daily gain of grazing cattle. Five series of trials, with four to eight trials per series within a grazing season, were conducted to evaluate the daily gain response under different environmental conditions and locations. Pastures grazed included both summer (cool- and warm-season grasses and native range) and winter (rye, ryegrass and wheat) growing pastures. The experimental design for all trials in each of five series was a randomized complete block with initial weight or breed as the blocking factor. The treatments compared in series I, III, IV and V (20 trials) were a control and a single RDD, whereas in series II (eight trials), a 2 x 2 factorial was utilized that compared RDD and estradiol 17-beta controlled release implants. In the five series of trials, the monensin RDD increased daily gain .04 (P = .002), .03 (P = .07), .09 (P = .01), .05 (P = .10) and .08 kg (P = .04) compared with the controls. Use of the RDD provided an effective method of achieving consistent monensin delivery and weight gain improvement without requiring the extra labor needed to administer monensin via hand-feeding or self-feeding supplements, blocks or loose mineral.

Rumen fermentation and liveweight gain in beef cattle treated with monensin and grazing lush forage

“…In previous trials, the effect of monensin and oestradiol have been additive. 11,31 Therefore, the continued improvement in BW gain over the last 32-day period of the trial in cattle treated with monensin compared with untreated controls was likely to be due to a continued effect of monensin alone and not due to an interaction between monensin and oestradiol.…”

“…The effect of monensin is generally greater when pasture quality is poor and the ADG of controls is low 10,31,32 and the response to monensin is lower when pasture quality is high. 11 In the current study, however, the response to monensin was greatest when ADG was highest (Figure 2), similar to effects observed with lasalocid.…”

The effect of feeding antibiotic growth promoters on the performance of beef cattle consuming forage-based diets: A review

“…Cattle (13,410 animals; 247 ± 41 kg BW) were British, Continental or B. indicus breeds. References: Monensin: Bagley et al, 1981;Bagley and Feazel, 1989;Burnham et al, 1997;Cochran et al, 1990;Darden and Wolfrom, 1988;Davenport et al, 1989;Horn et al, 1981;Horn et al, 1988;Keith et al, 1995;Merrill and Stobbs, 1986;Muller et al, 1986;Oliver, 1975;Parrott et al, 1990;Parrott et al, 1986;Potter et al, 1976;Potter et al, 1986;Rossi et al, 1997;Rouquette et al, 1980;Smith et al, 1995;Spears et al, 1989;Utley et al, 1976;Wagner et al, 1984. Lasalocid: Andersen andHorn, 1987;Delcurto et al, 1989;Keith et al, 1995;Paterson et al, 1983;Rode, 1987;Rode et al, 1994;Spears and Harvey, 1984;Thonney et al, 1981;Valdes et al, 1988;Worrell et al, 1990.…”

“…Since monensin X implant interaction (P N 0.8), the main effects are presented. This analysis included 16 comparisons (n = 4, Burnham et al, 1997;Cochran et al, 1990;Parrott et al, 1990;Wagner et al, 1984). Repetitions/ comparison (mean ± S.D.)…”

Supplementation and Monensin Effects on Digesta Kinetics I. Cattle Grazing Summer Range

“…Barley contained 15.1% crude protein on a dry matter (DM) basis. Monensin (M) was released via a ruminal delivery device' (MRDD) as described by Parrott et al (1986). Barley was fed to individual steers at 1300 daily to minimize disruption of grazing behavior (Adams 1985).…”