HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Calhoun, M. C. Articles by Shelton, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Calhoun, M. C. Articles by Shelton, M.

Effect of Dietary Monensin on Coccidial Oocyst Numbers, Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Lambs^1,2,

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University System, San Angelo 76901

Abstract

Five levels of monensin (0, 5.5, 11, 22 and 33 mg/kg) and two energy levels (2.61 and 3.18 Meal DE/kg) were fed in a factorial treatment arrangement with 249 feeder lambs. Initially, 95.6% of the lambs sampled were shedding coccidial oocysts. All levels of monensin decreased fecal oocyst numbers. Over a 70-day feeding period, feed intake was lowered .049 kg/day for each 10 mg/kg increase in monensin in the diet (P<.01). The relationship between monensin level in milligrams per kilogram (X) and live weight gains (adjusted to a constant dressing percentage) in kilograms per day (Y) was Y = .265 + .0019X – .00008X² (P<.05). For feed efficiency (feed/adj. gain), there was an interaction between monensin and energy level in the diet (P<.01). With the 3.18 Meal DE diets, the only improvement was at 5.5 mg/kg of monensin. In contrast, efficiency was improved at all monensin levels with the 2.61 Meal DE diets; with a maximum improvement of 23.2% at a calculated monensin level of 19.6 mg/kg. Monensin decreased ruminal acetate (P<.05) and butyrate (P<.01) and increased propionate (P<.01). However, the response was greater with the 2.61 Meal DE diets.

¹ Technical Article 14222 from the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

² This research was supported in part by Eli Lilly and Co., Greenfield, IN.

³ Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University System, San Angelo 76901.

⁴ Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Co., Dallas, TX 75234.

⁵ Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Charles Gates (Institute of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station) for assistance with the experimental design and statistical treatment of the data and to Brad Lisenbe for processing the data.