xt7djh3d0r06 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7djh3d0r06/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1978 journals 234 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.234 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.234 1978 2014 true xt7djh3d0r06 section xt7djh3d0r06 ;
A A.;;gA~g4>>’@iJ3;逤’~;i"{i;s;¤~ Aa»A;;A;%=;»iAA ‘ >;·AV;/y ·;»¤;4/A;,..;.4  ,;,w,,4:at·4,A  mw _;~ y »; A»,;·,»=<,.; .»/mx_,;,A,;   ; A A A. A A · A A . A .A , , , A . A _
~   /`»—¢ T z¤;¤A¥—A¤<—,;A-;·eiAAi#~A;;,r,Aai ~V.», * ,   4 , A A   A A _ :4 4 A 1 A , 4 A A
Aeewv-4 we A ~~:~`c>ez‘< {Amo   »,i»»¤$€’i2~4A¤~A::AA   .A.,. ¤nqsAJ’4~—»,A 4   A   ,A    n A A>»A- ·»A4 A -· , 4 4 A A A , A A A A A z A
      `_»‘ 3 AA — »:,~     »;/»       Ae    AA   A   A AA A     A A. A A
  AAAAA   >iA,A¤:~;>¤;    A , .,`· r_A   A   A A V A   A, : A- 4A AA A_ A
>~ A x4 <~€·>AA¢AA»f~s»A,AA.= ¤:~>;3<<¤> r·,*$z»,"’E"?%s@}  ·?~" vw , ·A» MA; ¤ M, ~A~* Mw ze. A: .;~A.>\ ,     »;,:,»,~ -4 - A, A . :4 AA · A · 4 A ~ A e AA A 44 · A ·
;=-j _·;r;;;~A_,A.A1g¢,;AM,Ag,A{;_A;AA-A4g4A;·AAg;  reA~AAgr AA ,     A . ’ ( ’ , A j, _ A A A ., A_ A j _ ,A A _ _ _
¢%     »i¢;;.'¢<~ ;z?;,¢Q '     ; `   ¤’ ' `A   Q "   A A " ` A 4 .;< A _ A AA 4 · _ _ · · _A
A  ¤`?Q4?”%é·”2~?zA'Z[4?`*4T7°¥Z’i§3§Z‘·€??“*x>   *‘,’*Z’ *"°~2%Y¥1€`4`¥  $1 AA ` »·`;·.AA: ~·`· ;~, »4=·   A4 . AA   A A ~A A A A A /’A` . A AA A e A A A
  gg < AAN mg KS,/V~;x,/,;;_l   A_,AA» AA  AIAA           _ A »V,. 4 _   N   {   i   _ _ _
» ·Ag;.14¤i;¤ §§¢z¤2‘·ie4?x§`¤;H»VA,<>;;>2>>$2w· ;€»BL’*;`,·m;—m,:xiA¤a_»  mA ‘ ”  4 *2 ;A·   1/A>A3A ,4 ;;*     A , , A ·A A   4 :~ A_A  A     N    ~f A/·A    A2 ` A*_A A ··/AA _ A A
* ;;A¥;$, AA,¢ A   g       A,,,     A     <     ‘> .     A A A· A· AA A A A A
=·/AA       A2 A my ·   AAA· rx EXP?   sz 5 A A wr'. A   A AA A — ·
  f,’QA;A‘§AA‘¢_,'£4¢v,,;   "°’“~g§A%“A¢: A ¤“~·%5‘ ‘   ' S3`;   _6A` Ggy q~;§f}§i‘   ;~4 ,{§ __   2 2,   A . / _ 2 _ _, _ A A
A; _,» ~_ ,;A~A·~. A. xg A »  Ax w, % W sys; ,,.;*%g°(,¤g2; . A. AA )€6,,~_, _, A ,/ ,, A A _ _ , L. I A
4;  #~‘»>‘L@%.,,AB¤   .. 5A·,   "   2 A     Q   Ae A *A A2       ?4”~         — 'A ` A A >
»`A .—   :»    `4  .¢·   ·w¤$s·W~A;»¤¤"’*¢4v?i:,A;,»:x~A—A.A»A >,~   A   ,1 AAA¢A,     AA   A ·A ’AA.· »,  ’~ , 3 ;A  
Ail'-    4A¤~.¤m»;< Ax;-,4A¢A·   4 ,_-—,A .A<     Ay A _ ,., A   AA   ,A~, A AA A A,
A     AAA   »~; ,AA_A L igéxi A   ~.‘A` ‘
¤¤‘·e¤»·A4,:4;=AAw;=Q~>;#4;AeA,4;”7;4;*%,AeA`,¢A;sr,<;$"¤W~i;AA=JA?     xw MTI; :"   A,A»·.;(A¢é‘"*<»3¤;·¤$   »g;»@A?  F4 A A·A~ ‘ l` Ascwé ·;>~'<¢A==jA ii    »>` A~7  *° ’ A A    
    Ai  .,A,,  VA?  ’.»‘     ¢rA‘A‘ L A
.   W `‘··‘‘   AA~-   »A~A TA  ‘AA‘·.   i‘.   ,A-’‘   ‘`=A wz AA
··‘       ·=-`’—.~‘,‘» we SA ¤rA¤»A A‘AA  r~j_      ,AA,_A‘ e  
      >~®—;4f”$>A~·A*A¤A2‘¤=¤A·— “°’#·s$AAA,4>’¢’v“»*f>:§~\~‘AAwAA A 4A    
;?A.AA;2 ·AA.~     —,‘. 4 ,   ,. A   ·, _A‘,   —A`= ;   ‘·,a<;<;?;?:=&;a§§;?2@2;~ A·A   ‘A·`  
  A i£<¤—5;%»?g#’·.2>¤§§g;kT{?>:¥’°; wi ’~"   C,;\;'; T R ww}; " A A ;A—<·§ ¤ :5* > ` ·~~·*A `
    ‘‘44 A   -*12 A¤`A  
<* ~*A4   ‘»‘‘ “’ `   ** A‘4A    Ac'? 
A A   ,.,A   AA ~~A A_,,A ;;QAAAA:;;;·~_    AAVA   A. {A
  " ‘<‘A?§;-;`,.,?f¥;?»’5 ~`~¤c;·I»?‘A·;`,`4"g Q   A   `
;j`AjA   i&A—:'1f'\' `
  A_A\ A ‘`4‘·     »``     ` _ q»    
©\    A              
`   A s
; `   z f /
` `   PROGRESS REPORT 234 ’

 WELCOME!
Dear Beef Cattle Producer: .
The Animal Sciences Department welcomes you to our 1978 Beef
Cattle Research Day. '
The oral presentations and the printed proceedings are planned to 1
give you an overview of our basic and applied research in the area of beef i
cattle production. Some of the areas of research focus on immediate farm " °
problems, and we hope will offer solutions that may be put into practice X .
immediately. Other research results may await application in future years.
W
Our intent is to have a research program geared to improving the .
efficiency and profitability of beef cattle production. Conferences such as
today’s allow our researchers to interact with producers, sort out research- .
able problem areas and seek to strengthen our total program. We encourage
you to express your views on the topics covered today and also on other I »
areas of specific interest.
The state of Kentucky has the potential of markedly increasing the
total beef production, beef production per acre or numbers of finished beef
cattle. Experiences of the past emphasize the need for keeping growth in
numbers and dollar returns to the producer in proper perspective. Those ·-
individuals staying abreast of current research information are in a better
position to capitalize on the opportunities.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil W. Hays, Chairman
Department of Animal Sciences ·
· I

  
·?’
  5
g i
% ‘ E
  s
  ~
i é
  -
5 €
$ \
  €
  RESEARCH RE OR 1 8  
·   i
i e
  s
· 5
  s
  Az.   5
° .·;  5  M5   * ·_.. — v_ %
` §  -~—       é
Ei “     .’*..;=   ·    "· - A. A _
i ¢, ·  _.E_    ,. ;      »v-_  .   ;
‘ ;y¢ A  `t __,“ " l     .; .      ~ `· ". , . _ c an  "* ' 1
g   fg __-·  _,  Q-_  $$;§  M  > _; -  U   
. _ _ ._ A  _ .,;. < -  ..   `·  ;   @·v { jj   ‘ "   , v .    .    · ~  `X.,   0*/ g
      ° i?                   W.   ¢
   · ~®‘°" ;        5   
       ·- ·.-   -  A A       %,._Q§,..g§;;@w z. ax     ;
  ”     ‘   W  . V.-                ··-   AA;  
-3   Y     nf M  $é”*‘ m., "’   xm/¤»‘w&.$¤¢*       ~>w€A”$w r
    {ey .-T- .      4  » <%<,m=.A     ‘¤y><·~z ..   »»;@e& .   5
w*¤·¤w A _     .. , #2* _ . AN, ,,.»~¤.¤~,;.,W#.;,.,~ ;g<»;w».,»?<,C,··   ,—, ~:,~M!,,*;§§§$.    R /.::*‘~~¥»3?$g¥     ,,,— .
.»>¤».m,       ·.`·. —< AA? A     »
    Qi?                
mv . VA -·  -.-. A  §z¢·» ‘“'  .,  . xm »   ·. ,¢z*&-fx ».·w¢A».-. ,,z>~   WA _ . z
  » M.     .     ~ — { . —  .. M.,   —.v..   . xm; _. =.».¤&w,§& ». Aw .,. .
{4 _  ._ 4, . <   J M ~ei;$_, ; .~ ·   - y  ~   -   % A ¥ gz $£A.a·2~ ” c`· ’
2   {     ix   gg f     ~    mm _§@5g,;>* g
§       x %»A®.     w        R f  \ `
.   ,2   “   ¤ . i“‘ " s   ," 1 AW M  
                        ,.·<..»   ·
    gi   AA   é   ggé   A   g E Q
# 4 ·‘·· ”»’,=  .;   —·  .—,. ., . li,  *·  ._   ,   Y ·»,;,;:;;¢_ ~ - .  ,°,»._
      éi             { ~, i
· fr . .;·>;§*   /·€"*—~g L,  .@,g; ;_5y·L ..   .. = $.,.3 1,9-  ? Q  vxww   sigg, ,...» ` · 2.
  ,. ~;     sz   ~    » . ··    " ._‘· *·   "*·a,,;   1 - gx
  1;       __      K \ {   Wy   ; {V
  Q  t _    @.5    gggy E   E K mw; 5   . ,.4, X ·¤‘ xx ,2  
‘ `. . w .’·.· :» ·. ‘ A   w ·  ’ M,          in .A _,;,,», wv; ~ > _
    ¤¢i,¤ ,AY·*¥»¢\,A*».; ·· A . gg,    -· .. ,   g?q2¢ ·/»· A 3,;;:,,*5%, , A, ¤—. g Q g .
      ¢,_·                . _,» 5 · E
     ‘      vé        »_ R A·~’ j
    -A»s$$t.;&;smg»¤, ;@& = . *%%   ¢gg;;~>¤    .z·g> ( ,
      2 ~   »      R AM Af" "
    A  ·   N ~A*>~A· . I     was   · .   . iam M. ` · ’ if .
g~’§ygr.;:r·’*¤©@>;g*= e?5?,x·g?A¢~=~§ . mi?     § ‘° S:<*<¤ `§;§;?;A$"x$ Wg?  *s;,_ G xw 4 ‘•*¥~ \__ »
  <¢»¤,.»r;   ·. ~. . ..   .~~m~ W ·§       »m»%,.» .   ¢ ~, “\ ·¢
‘@z?`§$;‘i¥’Fw2~>»@   crg ·· >     ps. ‘   mug,   { ¤, ¤,»§y·¥~¢ \ 4s x - fax g
                          .     ,: .
                  .3   i   4, E
              z       3. *·           *;~ . . 1  
                    _   f       xw f §
                  * ~»   . . . . f
» A   Q., MM .  V M; . ye   A. .
  >¥?%;z*r-rs.-w %»?·> »z;_—~”`€“§»z·s xg, <<§°%§;5$$£¢;.¢;w~ ¤A¢·,¤.*§%<   ww,   ~, $·?w¤**.» xw @2 »»~Y2. www! 6 »i »W__ ` i
    ··~Am¤> A-··   azz,     ¥>     ‘ ‘ A M A X `~ ,.A%.q,.} ~
            * £gz@:~A&§x»»S;·.x§   5* M *~—A-··2’==» ·;*·-:».,. KM ;
            ,<¤   S f ¤’ »..../’ 1 E
                      .   i si ;
                    J; g w? k
                    2      
A                     A        
    .           wztry; wm V· »--f`—~l A . ~·
    >     ig,   2   ‘   V wmri
  ai. » wb     . ixw     ,
    =£¥% %¢§?i=’>.   »w¢°%%é;»w.>>r~s <.#.c»z z.
zi/&»    mi?   ‘ >=f*§>. **2. .4  ¤Yfy»¢»;   1
               
        *§:;~$z  '.       .
5            
‘ R.   Kiwi   ·> viii?}  ;@.     ·i;z=   :4 ·
§           ’
               
        ,     
  mwefigiez?       {   Q PROGRESS REPORT 234
'         is      
                 
*                 ¤
                §
              4
»§¤¥z§;     gi>¢»§¤;@,§¢2%3#§» ’€   ’~¤.£;;€1¢¢,t.#- `· JA; ;
      ‘’‘.* Q3’<’.·A>.e¤P:¤~»  
as/,<2mm mw ·.~;‘<%~@m;@·~—»w5&z$ i‘*x.*,i vi?*2;;/¢z$,,,.m%¤2,:..A¤—x’Q~·.z¤ (»·/ ;, \W»;<·e:     ;z ;
my- WW I   <»~$¤> ,f.. q;<~?2§@;qY;qw A M 7, » <,g·;·;.,\·~y»,,;<;.IQ,¤M_   V ;¤€¢...,_{;,(·,A<,.¢ 0,,. 4 .,. a .· / W U R
y;c?_,,i@‘§iA>?*f;*§;:,f“&» °»&?e<¢€¥s%£%f’z-vv.Ai"§’&?£§·;}) gy, ri®;?;€;p·z*GiA2r,§7€“i;j**~  .‘.¤~"&§T‘i¤iM5’°,“J . · ·· ,
~,<¤~,~’; ;·~‘ic,; ¢¢»>*‘¤,r. M A.,”Z> ~;~...,:.:,,~7<;$.·r4.~.~i~ K   - ., ·
        Z
      *..·  ‘·   ,<
  =:   ;iQ;;s;» ><#5:‘EJ¢?iz~;A.’ Eli" ‘ ’
  ...,.,   ,,,... ..  N  .,,.~  .,  ...,..,. W   .....,.... WW ,.., W -,..,,,,,,..,.W.W..-.,,.,.W,..-.,,.- .,,. WW ..... N .- ..,,,, , . ..., Mw

 CONTENTS ·
Page
Beef Cattle Research Conference, 1978 - Program ............... 3 t
Levels and Efficacy of Monensin for Angus Cows Maintained ·
on Supplemental Feed in Drylot .................... 5
Monensin Blocks as a Supplement for Grazing Heifers ............. 7
Performance of Growing Steers Fed Corn Silage Supplemented with
Soybean Meal or Urea with or without Monensin ............. 8
Influence of Fescue Varieties on Grazing Steers During Different Seasons ...... 9
Influence of Lactobacillus Sp. Fermentation Product on Feed Intake
and Performance of Finishing Steers .................. 11
Effect of Some Management Factors on Cow Herd Productivity ......... 12
Some Alternative Cattle Finishing Systems for Kentucky ............ 15
Response of New Feeder Calves to Pasteurella Challenge, Cycloserine
Treatment and Energy Supplementation ................. 17
Bovine Respiratory Disease in Pre-Conditioned Cattle ............. 20
Modification of Ruminal Amino Acid Degradation by Antimicrobial Agents ..... 22
Plasma Amino Acid Concentrations in Germ-Free and Conventional
Ruminants ............................ 23
Growth and Efficiency of Steers Fed Oil-Coated Lysine ............. 24
Pancreatic Amylase Secretion by Growing Steers ,.............. 25
Blood Serum and Magnesium Changes in Steers Intravenously and
Intramuscularly Injected with Vitamin D3 ................ 27
Modification of Ruminant Metabolic Fecal Nitrogen by Dietary
Fiber Levels ........................... 28
Effect of Age on Plasma Nitrogen Constituents in Ewes Fed Two Levels A
of Protein ............................ 29
Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency in Ruminants ................ 30 A
2

 ‘ BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH CONFERENCE
October 6, 1978
Seay Auditorium - University ofKentucky
9:00 Registration
9:30 Welcome—Cha.rles E. Barnhart, Dea.n and Director, College of
Agriculture
9:40 Beef Cattle Program at U.K.—-V. W. Hays, Chairman, Department
of Animal Sciences
10:00 Starch Utilization by Cattle—G. E. Mitchell, Professor, Depart-
ment of Animal Sciences
10: 30 Kind of Pasture and Creep Feeding for Beef Cows and Calves-
C. W. Absher, Extension Professor, Department of Animal
1 Sciences
1 1: OO Break
1 1: 15 Models for Amino Acid Bypass—G. T. Schelling, Associate
Professor, Department of Animal Sciences
» 1 1:45 Nutritional Factors Influencing Gain and Efficiency of Growing
Calves—_]. A. Boling, Professor, Department of Animal
Sciences
12: 15 Lunch - Courtesy of Elanco Products Company i
1:30 Rumensin for Growing Cattle—N. W. Bradley, Professor,
Department of Animal Sciences
2:00 Stability of Additives-R. C. Tucker, Associate Professor,
Department of Animal Sciences
2: 30 Break
2:45 Systems of Finishing Cattle in Kentucky—Nelson Gay, Professor,
Department of Animal Sciences
4 3: 15 Beef Research Needs—W. H. Hale, Professor, Department of
Animal Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson
3

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Department of Animal Sciences acknowledges and thanks the
following organizations for their support of the research program:
Dawson-Baker Packing Co., Louisville, Ky. i
Chevron Chemical Co., Dallas Center, Iowa l
Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich. `
The Sulphur Institute, Washington, D.C.
Allied Chemical Co., Houston, Texas
Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Ala. t -
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.
IMC Chemical Group, Inc., Terre Haute, Ind.
Transagra Corporation, Memphis, Tenn.
Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Md.
Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., Nutley, N._].
American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, N._]. . _
Southem States Cooperatives, Inc., Richmond, Va.
Farmers Feed Mill, Lexington, Ky.
4

 i LEVELS AND EFFICACY OF MONENSIN FOR ANGUS COWS
  MAINTAINED ON SUPPLEMENTAL FEED IN DRYLOT
L. C. Pendlum, N. W. Bradley and]. A. Boling
One l1Ll1'1ClI`€d and twenty purebred Angus Table 1.——Weight Change and Dry Matter (DM) Intake of Cows
, cows averaging 4.5 years of age and 1,202 lb in $¤PPl¤m•¢¤t•=d with M°¤°“Si“·
weight were utilized to evaluate the efficacy of  
monensin on reproducing beef cows during the Moncnsin/HeadDai1y,Mg-i
supplemental winter feeding period. Treatment 0 50 200 300
groups consisted of: (1) control groups of cows
offered corn silage as a source of winter feed, (2) Number °f °°‘”s 28 30 30 30
cows fed corn silage (95% of control) and supple- ADGfd:ri¤gfi;¤;§ (gid
‘ mented with 50 mg monensin per head daily, (3) as PP m P ’ 0.20 0.34 0.29 0.13
cows fed corn silage (90% of control) and supple- ADG dum mma Su lc-
mented with 200 mg monensin daily, and (4) cows mcnta1§€riOd(14$p
fed silage (90% of control) and supplemented with day;),1b -0,88 -0,83 -0,74 .1,01
300 mg monensin daily. Corn silage fed during the Avg daily DM intake
experiment analyzed 38.0% dry-matter and 7.9% during supplemental
crude protein on a dry-matter basis. Each treat- P°'l°d·lb 1*-0 13-9 12-7 12·7
ment was replicated twice with 15 cows per repli- DM i¤tak¢ ¢xpr¢ss¢d asa V
Cate. The Supplemental feeding Period   days) percentage of control 100.0 99.3 90.7 90.7
A for all groups of cows was conducted in drylots.  
Following this phase of the study cows were grazed
on pasture (169 days) until the calves were weaned Body weight changes during the pasture (169
at approximately 205 days of age. days) and the combined supplemental and pasture
Dry matter intake and weight change of cows phases (316 days) are presented in Table 2. During
fed monensin is presented in Table 1. Average daily
gain during the first 89 days of the supplemental
feeding Period was       and     for Table 2.—Body Weight Change of Cows During Supplemental,
thc Control and the 503   and   mOn€n_ Pasture and Supplemental+ Pasture Phases of Study.
sin groups, respectively. This time period coincided  
with lllltlatlon of the study and continued until Moncnsin/Head DailY.Mg
parturition. Average daily weight change during the   L
entire supplemental period (147 days) for the con-
trol and the 50-, 200- and 300-mg monensin groups ;`?G’ lb
_ pplemental phase
’ was -0.88, -0.83, -0.74 and -1.01 lb, respectively. It (Dm 2 , APL 28) ,088 .033 ,0_y4 .l_01
should be noted that the combined weight changes Pasture phase
of the 200- and 300-mg monensin groups was (Ape 28 . OCL 14) 0_24 025 0_i5 0_30
almost identical to control groups (0 monensin) of Combined phase
cows. More importantly, a 9.3% decrease in (Dec. 2 -Oct. 14) -0.28 -0.26 -0.27 -0.32
dry-matter requirement was achieved during the  
supplemental feeding phase of the experiment
owing to feeding 200 or 300 mg of monensin daily. V
Very little response relative to feed savings was the pasture phase, cows fed 0, 50, 200 or 300 mg
observed when 50 mg of monensin per day was fed. monensin per head daily had gains of 0.24, 0.25,
5

 0.15 and 0.30 lb daily, respectively, AS was weight changes across monensin levels during the .
observed during the supplemental phase of the combined supplemental and pasture phases were Q
study, the combined mean weight changes for eews also very similar. This substantiates that a savings 4
offered either 200 or 300 mg monensin daily of feed owing to feeding 200 or 300 mg monensin
during the supplemental feeding period was very during the supplemental winter feeding period can
similar to that of control groups of cows offered be achieved without affecting weight changes of · .
no monensin during this period. Average daily cows that are subsequently grazed on pasture.
6

 MONEN SIN BLOCKS AS A SUPPLEMENT FOR GRAZIN G HEIFERS
L. C. Pendlum, M W. Bradley and j. A. Baling
Experiments in which monensin has been 2.28 lb for heifers fed a similar supplemental block
hand-fed to growing cattle on pasture indicates which had monensin incorporated. Although
W that rate of gain can be substantially improved pasture intake was not measured, the increased
owing to this additive. Hand-feeding is highly un- gain by the monensin-fed heifers was attained on a
practical under these conditions; therefore, an similar amount of supplemental feed. Based on the
alternate method of supplementing grazing cattle increased weight gain alone, however, feeding
 ` would be desirable. One possibility for refining this monensin as a compressed block seems to be a
problem is the introduction of monensin through potentially effective method of introducing this
compressed blocks. To investigate this technique additive to pasture-fed cattle.
_ an experiment was conducted to evaluate the
effect of compressed monensin blocks when fed to Table 1.—Average Daily Gain and Supplemental Feed Intake of
gyowing hcifcrs On P3_Stul·c_ Grazing Heifcrs F€d M0n€nSin Bl0CkS.
Sixty-six Angus heifers averaging 531.2 1b  
- were randomly assigned to 6 groups of 11 heifers Treatment
each for a total of 90 days. One-half ofthe heifers C°“¤°l M°¤°¤$i¤
were fed a control supplement consisting of a com- N0. heifers 32 33
pressed block of carrier materials. The remaining 1,,,,,,],,,,,,,1, ;,33_4 52g_0
groups were offered this same carrier material with Fi¤¤1w¢,1b 733-7 720-9
monensin included in the block. All heifers were F °°gri;t:;‘§’s;1l;€§‘;§iQ°;?1Y itk dry) gig 2:33
also fed 6.0 lb of cracked com per head daily. Hay Hay, lb 050 058
was fed ad libitum when adequate pasture was un- Supplement (monensin meek), lb 0.32 0.33*
available. The 6 pastures utilized consisted of Ky A"°‘“·’g° dam! g‘““·“’ 2·°8 228
31 fescue or Ky bluegrass with heifers being  
rotated weekly so that all groups of heifers would *Pr°v1d°d 100 mgm°n°"s1°p°rh°ad pcrdal"
have equal access to all pastures.
Performance of the heifers is presented in
Table 1. The average daily gain observed for heifers
fed the control supplement block was 2.08 lb vs
7

 PERFORMANCE OF GROWING STEERS FED CORN SILAGE SUPPLEMENTED
WITH SOYBEAN MEAL OR UREA WITH OR WITHOUT MONENSIN
L. C. Pendlum, ]. A. Boling and N. W. Bradley
Numerous studies indicate that monensin is of Performance of the steers during the study is
extreme economic importance relative to feed presented in Table 1. Average daily gains of steers
savings in the growing-finishing beef industry. With fed soybean meal was 0.99 vs 0.92 kg for steers fed *
the advent of increased human competition for the urea supplemented diets. Feed-to-gain ratios
feed grains, increased utilization of diets such as were slightly lower in the steers fed soybean meal
com silage that contain a high percentage of rough- when compared with those fed urea as a nitrogen V 
age is evident. Corn silage is relatively high in supplement. Steers fed 200 mg monensin daily
energy; however, supplemental nitrogen must be gained slightly faster and had a lower feed intake
provided to achieve maximal gain in feedlot cattle. and a substantially improved feed-to—gain ratio _
Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate when compared with steers not receiving monen-
soybean meal (SBM) and urea as supplemental sin.
nitrogen sources when fed with or without monen-
sin as related to growth, feed intake and efficiency. Table l.—Average Daily Gain, Feed Intake and Efficiency of Steers
Ninety-six Angus x Hereford crossbred steers D¤ri¤s106-D¤vT¤i¤i- A
averaging 266 kg in weight were randomly assigned  
to 12 groups of 8 each in this study. The four diets Main meets Nitrogen stnitee Leveiyivitinentin/day, Mg
were: (A) SBM plus no monensin, (B) SBM plus SBM Uma 0 200
200 mg monensin, (C) urea plus- no monensin and Ncmtms 48 48 48 48
(D) urea plus 200 mg monensin per head daily. 1,,,.,,,1 wgkg 297 293 292 299
Corn silage averaging 35.4% dry-matter and 7.85% ADG, kg 0·99 0.92 0.93 0.98
crude protein on a dry-matter basis was fed to all Total FL kg* 6"H 6*34 6*64** 6*10
. . F/G* 6.48 6.89 7.15** 6.23
groups of steers ad lzbztum. Ground shelled corn
was utilized as a carrier for supplemental nitrogen malcumcd on dnhmmu basis·
and m0Y`\€U5lI`i in thc 1`OUY €Xp€Y1ITl€l'llZ9·1 $UPP1€· **Main effect means differ significantly (P(.05).
ments. The supplements averaged 94% dry-matter
and 30% crude protein equivalent (N x 6.25) on a i
dry-matter basis. These were topdressed on the
silage at a rate of 1.14 kg daily, divided into equal
am and pm feedings. This provided 200 mg of —
monensin daily for steers fed supplements B and D.
The steers were fed their respective diets for 106
days.
8

 INFLUENCE OF FESCUE VARIETIES ON GRAZING
STEERS DURING DIFFERENT SEASONS
S. Oshidari,* N. Gay, ]. A. Boling and W. Muir
Fescue is one of the most important grass MANAGEMENT OF PASTURES
I species in the U.S. because of its ability to grow
under a wide-range of soil types and climatic condi- All pastures were second year stands of pure
tions. Since the 1940’s, fescue has been one of the fescue. Nitrogen was applied at the rate of 45
most widely used grasses for forage, turf and kg/ha (40-06 lb/9·€1‘€) 011 March 23, wd 45 kg/ha
conservation practices. It is especially prevalent (40-06 ib/aerei on June i‘i» aud 68 kg/no (60-5
E in the southern United States. Tall fescue is the Ib/¤¤r¢)<>¤ August 15- (N0 P. K ¤r lime iu 1977-)
major forage grass of Kentucky, accounting for Au attempt Wes made to keeP ine forage at its
2.4 million he (5,928,000 acres) in pure or mixed <>r>timum quality bv r¤t=»ui<>¤¤1 grazing aud clip-
stands. Fescue varies widely in quality depending Ping- The Sroeidng rare durius the SPrin3 Period
on such factors as maturity of the pient, season was 5 Sims/ha (2-01/wc)- ou Juue 14 ¤11¢¤t‘¤1¢
of the year, moisture, and soil fertility. Results Were removed from thc Pesrnres owing io drought-
of research with cattle have been variable and On .lniY 8 eeiiiie were returned at the rare oi 2-5
frequently in conflict. The purpose of this study Steers/ha (1-0/am) aud ¢<>¤tiuu¢<1 t<> August 11- at
was to Observe the response Of growing Steel-S which time it was necessary to again remove them. V ‘
grazing different Varieties Of feSeue_ Cattle were returned to the pastures on September
T 26 and remained until Nov. 23. Stocking rate was
2.5 steers/ha (1.0/acre) during the latter period.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Four experimental varieties (selections) of MANAGEMENT or CATTLE
fescue (Ky-31, Kenhy, G1-306 and G1-307) were
randomly assigned to eight 1.6 ha (3.95 acres) Cattle weights were taken full and after an
pastures. Sixty-four crossbred yearling steers aver- ovemight shrink without feed or water at the
— aging 295 kg (649 lb) W€1‘€ randomly 3.1l0tt€d 110 beginning of this study. All cattle were implanted
these eight pastures on March 1, 1977. Varieties with DES and given routine vaccines. Periodic
G1-306 and G1-307 were fescue x ryegrass hybrids weights and ADG calculations were based on full
selected for perloline content, palatability, and weight. Blood samples were taken for PUN during
other factors. Observations on average daily gain of the fall period. Cattle were maintained on a fescue *
steers and characteristics of the fescue were ana- lot with limited grazing available and self-fed
lyzed by season: spring (Apr. 1 to June 14), sum- fescue hay during the time they were removed
mer (July 7 to Aug. 1), and fall (Sept. 26 to Nov. from the pastures. Shade, water and plain salt were
23). The spring season is the period when fescue provided at all times. The data were analyzed using
growth and quality is considered to be at its opti— a split-plot type design with varieties as whole-plot
mum. The summer period is when quality, as units and seasons as the split-plot units. The
measured by animal performance, is expected to be analysis was based on the means over all steers
poorest. The fall period is characterized by a within a pasture for each month within a variety.
quality higher than summer but less than spring in
improving animal performance. V
*University of Azarabadegan, Tabriz-Iran.
9

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION pastures. Results of analysis of these data are
shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Although not
During the spring period, average daily gains subjected to statistical analyses, the % NPN were
were significantly higher on Ky-31 than on 31.3, 26.3 and 23.7 for spring, summer and fall
Gl-307. Kenhy and G1-306 were intermediate to periods. These do not appear to be related to
those two varieties (Table 1). During the summer animal performance.
period G1-307 was significantly lower than the
other varieties. During the fall period, Kenhy and Table 3.—Crude Protein %*.
Table 1.—Avemge Daily Gains of Steers kg (lb).* Ky_g1 Kcnhy GL306 G1_g07 season {
spmmg 11.9* 12.6* 12.2* 12.0* 12.23
Ky—31 Kenhy G1-306 Gl-807 Mean b b b
  Summer 14.9*· 18.2C 16.0 14.2* 15.9
Spring 0.871* 0.77a*b 0.79a*b 0.74a 0-79b Fall 1g_5a 143* ]4_4a 14,9* 14,4**
(1.9) (1.7) (1.7) (1.6) (1.7) V U _ 134a 1521) 14231 I3 7a ·
1C[ . . . .
Summer 0.43b 0.58b 0.58b 0.20a 0.44a U yx
(0.9) (1.3) (1.3) (0.44) (0.9) _ _ _ _ __ _
b b a b a a *Means with different superscnpts are significantly different (P(.01).
Fall 0.49 0.82 0.67 ’ 0.56 0.75
(1.1) (1.8) (1.5) (1.2) (1.7)
H u a a Table 4.—Acid Detergent Fiber %*.
Mean 0.64 0.73 0.69 0.54
(1.4) (1.6) (1.5) (1.2)  
  Ky-31 Kenhy G1-306 G1-307 Season?
*Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P(.01).
Spring 25.9* 25.9* 25.4* 25.9* 25.6*
Summer 24.7* 22.2* 29.6** 26.2* 26.0*
Gl-306 were superior to Ky-31. Overall, ADG were pan 34,7* 24,2** 25,4** 24.4** 24.7**
0.73 (1.6 lb), 0.64 (1.4 lb), 0.69 (1.5 lb) and 0.54 Variety; 3516 3454 3636 3556
(1,2 lb) kg for Kenhy, Ky-31, G1-306 and G1-307,  
respectively- Total beef production for all seasons *Mmm with different superscripts um significantly disrcmm (P(.O1).
was 440 (392 lb/acre), 424 (377 lb/acre), 427 (380
lb/acre) and 354 kg/ha (315 lb/acre) for Ky—31, Table 5_-Ncum,; D,,mgcmpibc,%*_
Kenhy, Gl-306 and G1-307, respectively.  
Plasma urea nitrogen levels were 13.8, 13.5, Ky_31 Kcnhy G1_3O6 GL307 Season; g
15.6 and 13.1 mg/ml for Kenhy, Ky-31, G1-306 "——"“ ` Z; " "_"_"` ’_°‘ " ‘ `
and Gl-307, respectively (Table 2). The values for Spring 66.3*1 66.1a 60.6b 60.9b 68.5**
Gl—306 were significantly greater than for the Summer 68.9** 65.5* 66.32 67.1* 66.9b
Utllcf V¤¤`i¤l>l¢$· rar 65.7* 67.2* 67.2* 66.03 66.5b
variety Y 67.0* 66.2* 64.72 64.7*
Table 2.~Plasma Urea Nitrogen (mg/100 m1).*
  *Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P(01).
Gl—306 15.55b
1{enhy 13.85**
Ky-31 13.51**
ci-207 12.12*
*Means with different snperscripts are signifi
cantly different (P (.01   _
Forage samples were taken periodically and
each time cattle were removed or returned to
10

 INFLUENCE OF LACTOBACILLUS SP. FERMENTATION PRODUCT ON FEED
INTAKE AND PERFORMANCE OF F INISHING STEERS
]. A. Boling, N W Bradley and N. Gay
The I`8t€ Et   cattle begin to COHSLUTIC Table 1.—Feed Intake and Performance of Steers fed Lactobacillus
feed after entering the feedlot is of great concern SP- F=¥m¤¤l¤li¤¤ i’¤>d¤¢¢-
to the cattle feeder. Many cattle entering the feed-  
lot have been without feed or water for a consider- Treatment
· able period of time, and are further stressed from Dem A B C D
the conditions of shipping and marketing. The  
following study was conducted to evaluate the Numb" °fS°°°rs 24 24 24 23
influence of a non-viable fermentation product of Feedimake/Steel- lb/dw
Lactobacillus sp. (Culbac®) on feed intake and ggixgg gi'; gi`?   Eg'?
performance of finishing steers. Days 29.58 28j8 28:1 29;4 29:1
On the day prior to the initiation of the trial, Days 57-84 28.9 29.0 28.9 28.9
the steers were weighed full at 9:00 a.m. and Days i‘84 264 260 26*7 265
removed from feed and water. They remained in Avg daily gaillilb 3-22 3-24 $-29 3·ll
the corral area until 4:00 p.m. and were then Feed/gatnratie 8.11 8.02 8.12 8.55
driven on foot 1.1 mile to stand overnight without  
feed or water at a different holding area. On the
following morning at 8:00 a.m. the steers were _ _ _ _
driven back to the initial corral Wei hed shrunk fed the additive. For days 15-28, increased intake
, g . .
and the trial initiated. was observed 1n steers 1n treatment groups C and
Ninety-six steers averaging 723.4 lb shrunk D' _ _
Weight wom randomly allotted to 12 Pons of 8 Feed intake was essentially the same for all
steers each. The pens of cattle were then randomly treatment grOuPS Or Cattle durmg the lest 28`dew
assigned to four treatment groups, which contained period (days 57-84). When the average daily feed
three replicate pens of eight steers each per treat- intake f0f the total Vial l$ Summallzed (¢"l¤Y$ l·8‘l),
ment. The four dietary treatments were: (A)- a trend toward increased feed intake vtas observed
control diet which consisted of 20.0% cottonseed in steers in treatment groups C and D. However, it
hulls. 69-0% eraeked Yell0W e¤l`n, 9-7% $0Yb€&¤ should be noted that most of the increased intake
meal (44% crude PrOtein)» 0-7% gr<>¤¤d limestone, response was observed early in the feeding period.
0-1% dleeleinin PnO$Plleie> 0-5% trace mineml Sell Overall average daily gain and feed efficiency was
3-¤l` lwl l¤*¤¤l<€ <=¤ill<=¤‘-
lb feed per head on day 1, 16 lb per head on day 2 Further studies are needed with this product
and then offered feed ad libitum on day 3 and utilizing different types of diets, smaller cattle and
throughout the remainder of the trial. stress conditions more closely resembling those
Feed intake and performance data are normally encountered. The potential benefits of
presented in Table 1. this or other similar products for young cattle in ,
` Average daily feed intake was increased {Oy I‘CdUClI`1g l'T`lOI`bl(lllLy 3.I“l(l I‘I1OI`