J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J. Anim Sci. 1972. 34:234-240.
© 1972 American Society of Animal Science

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Bartley, E. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Bartley, E. E.

Bloat in Cattle. XVI. Development and Application of Techniques for Selecting Drugs to Prevent Feedlot Bloat1, 2,

R. M. Meyer and E. E. Bartley

Kansas State University, Manhattan 66502

Abstract

THE prevention of bloat has been the object of many studies, the majority involving use of surface-active agents or antibiotics. Because feedlot bloat is essentially the frothy type (Meyer and Bartley, 1971), the introduction of synthetic detergents provided an abundance of surfactants that could be tested for froth inhibition in the rumen. However, to test in vivo the multitude of drugs available would be a prohibitive task.

This paper describes a three-step program for screening drugs for prevention of feedlot bloat. The first step (Experiment 1) determines the effect of the drug on in vitro froth production, surface tension, relative viscosity, and microbial activity. In this step, 235 drugs were tested. The second step (Experiment 2) consists of administering potential bloat preventives to rumen-fistulated cattle fed a feed-lot bloat-provoking ration. The effect of 54 drugs on in vivo rumen froth production was evaluated. The last step (Experiment 3) in testing the efficacy of a bloat prophylactic was to administer the drug as a feed additive to cattle bloating on an all-concentrate ration.


Footnotes

1 Contribution No. 820, Department of Dairy and Poultry Science, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.

2 Supported in part by a grant from Smith Kline and French Laboratories, Philadelphia. The assistance of Dr. S. F. Scheidy, Mr. G. M. Grass and Dr. G. C. Scott of Smith Kline and French is gratefully acknowledged.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J ANIM SCIHome page
J. T. Vasconcelos and M. L. Galyean
ASAS Centennial Paper: Contributions in the Journal of Animal Science to understanding cattle metabolic and digestive disorders
J Anim Sci, July 1, 2008; 86(7): 1711 - 1721.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1972 by the American Society of Animal Science.