PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 4, 2026Journal of Animal Science0 citations

Effects of Different Feed Additives on Intake, Nutrient Digestibility, and Ruminal Fermentation Characteristics of Finishing Beef Cattle

View Full Paper
FNFelipe Fonseca NassarMitchell InstituteEFEnzo A FioruciMitchell InstituteRCReinaldo F CookeTexas College

Key Points

  • The aim was to assess the impact of various feed additives on dry matter intake, nutrient digestibility, and ruminal fermentation characteristics in finishing beef steers.
  • Used eight ruminally cannulated steers in a 4 × 4 Latin square design.
  • Evaluated four treatments: Control, Monensin, CattIActive, and a combination of both.
  • Each experimental period lasted 16 days, with 10 days for adaptation and 6 days for sample collection.
  • Data analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS.
  • DMI tended to be lower for steers fed Monensin compared to Control.
  • Ruminal acetate was reduced in steers fed CattIActive and Monensin + CattIActive.
  • Propionate levels increased in Control and Monensin + CattIActive compared to Monensin and CattIActive.
  • Butyric acid levels were higher in CattIActive and Monensin + CattIActive groups compared to others.
  • Rumination time increased for Monensin + CattIActive compared to Control.

Abstract

Abstract Feed additives such as ionophores and plant-based compounds have been widely studied in ruminant nutrition for their ability to modulate ruminal fermentation and influence dry matter intake (DMI), with the goal of improving feed efficiency and animal health. Nevertheless, the combined use of these additives still warrants further investigation regarding their effects on nutrient digestibility and ruminal fermentation, especially given the wide variety of commercially available products that differ in composition and mode of action. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of feed additives and their combinations on DMI, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, ruminal fermentation characteristics, and rumination time of finishing beef steers. Eight ruminally cannulated steers (average BW = 404 ± 44 kg) were used in a duplicated 4 × 4 Latin square design to evaluate the effects of four treatments: Control (CON): no feed additive in the basal finishing diet; Monensin (MON): dietary supplementation of sodium monensin at 33 mg/kg of dry matter (DM basis; Rumensin 90, Elanco Animal Health); CattIActive (CA): dietary supplementation with CattIActive (a proprietary multi-component feed additive containing orange peel bitters, onion extract, specific fatty acids, and soybean and corn oil; Pro Earth Animal Health) at 10g/head/day; and Monensin + CattlActive (MON+CA): combination of sodium monensin (33 mg/kg of dry matter) + CattIActive (10 g/head/day). Steers were fed a finishing diet containing 10% roughage and 90% concentrate once daily. Each 16-day experimental period included 10 days of adaptation to the experimental diets and 6 days of sample collection. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. DMI tended to be less (P = 0.09) for steers fed MON compared to CON. No other effects were observed on nutrient intake or apparent total tract nutrient digestibility (P ≥ 0.18). Treatments did not affect ruminal pH (P ≥ 0.11). Ruminal proportion of acetate (C2) was less in steers fed CA and CA+MON compared to CON (P ≤ 0.03). Ruminal proportion of propionate (C3) was greater in steers fed CON and MON+CA compared to MON and CA (P ≤ 0.05), and C2:C3 ratio was less for MON+CA compared to MON (P = 0.02). Ruminal proportion of butyric acid was greater for CA and CA+MON compared to MON and CON (P ≤ 0.05). Ruminal ammonia nitrogen was less for CA and MON+CA compared to CON and MON (P ≤ 0.01). Additionally, MON+CA increased rumination time (min/kg DMI; P = 0.02) compared to CON. In summary, these results suggest that CA and the combination of MON+CA may positively alter ruminal fermentation characteristics without affecting the intake and the apparent total tract nutrient digestibility in finishing steers.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nassar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d0aee0659487ece0fa4bb2https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag057.070
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 175. Effects of Different Feed Additives on Intake, Growth Performance, and Carcass Characteristics of Finishing Beef Cattle2026
  2. 2Effects of different feed additives on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and apparent total nutrient digestibility of finishing beef steers2026
  3. 3Effects of selected feed additives on rumen pH dynamics, physiological responses, and rumen and cecum morphometrics in feedlot beef cattle2026
  4. 4233 Inclusion of a multispecies fungal feed additive in forage-based diets fed to beef cattle: Effects on growth performance and ruminal fermentation2024 · 1 citations
  5. 5PSXIII-20 Impact of Aspergillus oryzae fermentation-derived prebiotic-like additive combined with monensin on feedlot performance in finishing steers2024