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


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Shellito, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Caton, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shellito, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Caton, J. S.
J. Anim. Sci. 2006. 84:1535-1543
© 2006 American Society of Animal Science


ANIMAL PRODUCTION

Effects of concentrated separator by-product (desugared molasses) on intake, ruminal fermentation, digestion, and microbial efficiency in beef steers fed grass hay1

S. M. Shellito2, M. A. Ward3, G. P. Lardy, M. L. Bauer and J. S. Caton4

Department of Animal and Range Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Concentrated separator by-product (CSB) is produced when beet molasses goes through an industrial desugaring process. To investigate the nutritional value of CSB as a supplement for grass hay diets (12.5% CP; DM basis), 4 ruminally and duodenally cannulated beef steers (332 ± 2.3 kg) were used in a 4 x 4 Latin square with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Factors were intake level: ad libitum (AL) vs. restricted (RE; 1.25% of BW, DM basis) and dietary CSB addition (0 vs. 10%; DM basis). Experimental periods were 21 d in length, with the last 7 d used for collections. By design, intakes of both DM and OM (g/kg of BW) were greater (P < 0.01; 18.8 vs. 13.1 ± 0.69 and 16.8 vs. 11.7 ± 0.62, respectively) for animals consuming AL compared with RE diets. Main effect means for intake were not affected by CSB (P = 0.59). However, within AL-fed steers, CSB tended (P = 0.12) to improve DMI (6,018 vs. 6,585 ± 185 g for 0 and 10% CSB, respectively). Feeding CSB resulted in similar total tract DM and OM digestion compared with controls (P = 0.50 and 0.87, respectively). There were no effects of CSB on apparent total tract NDF (P = 0.27) or ADF (P = 0.35) digestion; however, apparent N absorption increased (P = 0.10) with CSB addition. Total tract NDF, ADF, or N digestion coefficients were not different between AL- and RE-fed steers. Nitrogen intake (P = 0.02), total duodenal N flow (P = 0.02), and feed N escaping to the small intestine (P = 0.02) were increased with CSB addition. Microbial efficiency was unaffected by treatment (P = 0.17). Supplementation with CSB increased the rate of DM disappearance (P = 0.001; 4.9 vs. 6.9 ± 0.33 %/h). Restricted intake increased the rate of in situ DM disappearance (P = 0.03; 6.4 vs. 5.3 ± 0.33 %/h) compared with AL-fed steers. Ruminal DM fill was greater (P = 0.01) in AL compared with RE. Total VFA concentrations were greater (P = 0.04) for CSB compared with controls; however, ammonia concentrations were reduced (P = 0.03) with CSB addition. At different levels of dietary intake, supplementing medium-quality forage with 10% CSB increased N intake, small intestinal protein supply, and total ruminal VFA.

Key Words: desugared molasses • digestion • cattle • forage • intake • supplementation


    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Concentrated separator by-product (CSB), or desugared molasses, is a by-product remaining after beet molasses has had additional sugar removed (Greenwood et al., 2000Go). Beet molasses, a by-product of sucrose extraction from sugar beets, has traditionally been used as a base ingredient for molasses blocks (Greenwood et al., 2000Go) and is frequently used as a source of supplemental energy and protein for cattle consuming low-quality forages (Heldt et al., 1999Go). Animal response to dietary additions of CSB may be different compared with beet molasses because CSB has a lower concentration of sucrose (23.0 vs. 50.0%, DM basis) and greater CP (19.0 vs. 8.5%, DM basis) and ash (29.0 vs. 11.3%, DM basis; Wiedmeier et al., 1992Go; NRC, 2000Go). Previous research with cooked molasses blocks containing CSB (Greenwood et al., 2000Go) or CSB fed separately, mixed, or both (Lawler-Neville et al., 2006Go) with the low-quality forage portion of the diet has resulted in increased intake, digestion, or both. Research with medium quality forages (Titgemeyer et al., 2004Go) supplemented with CSB-based cooked molasses blocks indicated minimal intake and digestion responses across a range of forage qualities. Recently, Lawler-Neville et al. (2006)Go reported that additions of 10% CSB (DM basis) to forage-based diets increased intake independent of forage quality, and Loe et al. (2002)Go reported that including CSB at 5% of DMI increased intake and gain in newly received feedlot steers. Little information is available on the effects of CSB as a dietary supplement on use of medium-quality forages offered either ad libitum (AL) or at restricted (RE) levels of intake. Therefore, our objectives were to evaluate the influence of CSB on intake, digestion, fermentation, and microbial efficiency in beef steers fed medium-quality grass hay diets at 2 levels of intake and with and without CSB addition.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Animals and Experimental Design
The North Dakota State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved all surgical and animal management procedures used in this experiment. Four ruminally and duodenally cannulated beef steers (332 ± 2.3 kg) were used in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. Treatments were arranged in a 2 x 2 factorial. Factors were intake level (AL vs. RE) and dietary CSB addition (0 vs. 10% CSB). For the RE treatments, intake was based on 1.25% of steer BW, which is in the range often observed in grazing situations (Caton et al., 1988Go; Johnson et al., 1998Go). Restricted intake levels were adjusted each period as BW changed. Weights were measured at the end of each experimental period and were not adjusted to a common shrink or fill.

Diets
For the 10% CSB diet, CSB (DM basis) was added directly to the hay, while chopping the big round bales (3.8-cm screen, model No. 457000, Art’s-way Mfg. Co., Armstrong, IA). Control hay was chopped without the addition of CSB. After chopping and mixing, hay was stored in concrete bays under roof.

Animals were housed in individual stanchions and had ad libitum access to water. Nutrient composition of the diets is presented in Table 1Go. Trace-mineralized salt blocks (minimum 980 g of NaCl, 3.50 g of Zn, 2.80 g of Mn, 1.75 g of Fe, 0.35 g of Cu, 0.07 g of I, and 0.07 g of Co/kg; North American Salt Company, Overland Park, KS) were offered free choice throughout the entire experiment. Diets were offered once daily (0600) with AL-fed animals offered feed to provide a minimum of 10% of the feed as refusals. Diet sampling began 2 d before the beginning of each collection period and continued daily throughout collections. Orts were weighed daily for AL-fed steers. Ten percent of the daily orts were accumulated, mixed, subsampled, analyzed, and used in digestibility calculations.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Nutrient composition (DM basis) of diets fed to steers1
 
Sample Collection
For each period, steers were allowed 14 d for adaptation to the diet, followed by a 7-d collection period. To measure total fecal output, the steers were fitted with fecal collection bags during each collection period. Bags were emptied twice daily at 0600 and 1600. For each 24-h period, total fecal excretion was determined, and feces were mixed, subsampled (10% of total daily output), and composited within steer and period. Fecal samples were dried in a forced-air oven at 55°C for at least 72 h and ground in a Wiley Mill (No. 4 Wiley Mill, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) to pass a 2-mm screen. To provide an indigestible marker of digesta flow, the steers were dosed with chromic oxide (16 g/d) via gelatin capsules through the ruminal cannula at 0600 and 1800. Dosing began on d 9 and continued through d 18. Duodenal fluid samples (approximately 200 g) were collected from d 15 through 18 of each collection period, in a system that allowed for every other hour in a 24-h period to be sampled (Caton et al., 1994Go). Digesta were composited within steer and period and stored frozen (–20°C) until analyses. After the study, duodenal samples were lyophilized (Genesis model 25 LL, Virtis Co., Gardiner, NY).

At the morning feeding on d 19 of each period, 200 mL of CoEDTA (850 mg of Co; fluid-phase marker; Uden et al., 1980Go) were ruminally dosed into each steer for estimation of fluid passage rates. Samples of ruminal fluid (approximately 100 mL) from the midventral region were taken at –1, 0, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, and 24 h postfeeding. Ruminal fluid pH was measured using a portable pH meter (model 2000, Beckman Instruments Inc., Fullerton, CA) with a combination electrode and acidified with 1 mL of 7.2 N H2SO4. Samples were then stored frozen (–20°C) until later analysis.

In situ degradation measurements were conducted on d 18 through 21 of each period. Duplicate in situ bags (Ankom, Fairport, NY; 10 x 20 cm; 50 ± 15 µm pore size) containing 5 g of ground (2-mm screen) forage were ruminally incubated within each steer. Forage containing both 0 and 10% CSB was weighed separately into in situ bags and sealed with a rubber stopper and 2 rubber bands (Caton et al., 1994Go). Samples were incubated for 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h; bags were not anchored in the rumen and, therefore, were inserted beneath the ruminal fiber mat. Samples were inserted in reverse order and removed at 0 h. A blank was included for each incubation time. All bags were suspended in a large-mesh (18 x 24 cm) nylon bag that allowed contact with the ruminal contents. In situ bags were soaked in warm water (60°C) for 20 min before ruminal insertion.

Once collected, the in situ bags were first rinsed with tap water to remove excess ruminal material on the outside of the bags. In situ bags were then placed in a top-loading washer (model WJXR2080TSWW, General Electric, Louisville, KY) and rinsed in cold water for 10 cycles, using the lowest water level and the delicate cycle options. To determine forage DM disappearance, the dacron bags were then dried in a forced-air oven (model No. SB-350, Grieve Co., Round Lake, IL) at 55°C for 48 h and reweighed.

Total ruminal evacuations were conducted on d 21 of each period. Contents were weighed, mixed thoroughly by hand, and subsampled in duplicate. Subsamples were dried in a forced-air oven (55°C) for 72 h. An additional 4-kg sample of ruminal contents was saved for bacterial analysis. Samples were preserved with 2 L of formalin (9 g of NaCl/L of 3.7% formaldehyde) and stored frozen (–20°C) until bacterial cells were isolated. Steers were weighed (not adjusted for shrink or fill) on the last day of each period, and BW was used as a denominator for expressing the intake and fill data.

Laboratory Analyses
Diet, fecal, lyophilized duodenal, and in situ bag residues were analyzed in duplicate for DM, ash, and N by AOAC (1990)Go procedures 930.15, 942.05, and 984.13, respectively. Neutral detergent fiber (Van Soest et al., 1991Go) and ADF (Goering and Van Soest, 1970Go) of diet, duodenal, and fecal samples were determined by procedures modified by Ankom Technology.

Ruminal fluid samples were thawed at room temperature and centrifuged at 20,000 x g for 10 min at 4°C. Supernatant from the initial centrifugation step was mixed with 25% (wt/vol) metaphosphoric acid (5 mL of ruminal fluid and 1 mL of metaphosphoric acid) and recentrifuged at 20,000 x g for 10 min. The fluid portion was filtered through a 0.45-µm filter into 12 x 75-mm storage tubes and taken for VFA analysis; 2-ethylbutyric acid was used as the internal standard (Goetsch and Galyean, 1983Go). Determination of VFA was conducted by gas chromatography (model GC-9A, Shimadzu Scientific Instruments, Columbia, MD; Supelco 21687 Chromosorb WAW packed column; 140°C; N gas carrier). Supernatant from the initial centrifugation was analyzed for Co and ammonia concentration. The Co analysis (Uden et al., 1980Go) was conducted by atomic absorption spectroscopy using an air-plus-acetylene flame (model No. 3030B, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT), and ammonia was determined colorimetrically (Broderick and Kang, 1980Go).

To dislodge particulate-associated bacteria, samples of whole-ruminal contents fixed with formalin were blended (model 37BL19 CB6, Waring Products, New Hartford, CT) with 0.9% saline (approximately 1 part saline:2 parts ruminal contents) for approximately 1 min. Blended contents were strained through 4 layers of cheesecloth. Bacteria-rich fluid fractions were then prepared by differential centrifugation (Merchen and Satter, 1983Go), lyophilized, and ground (mortar and pestle). Isolated bacterial cells were analyzed for DM, ash, and N (AOAC, 1990Go). Purine analysis was conducted on bacterial, duodenal, and in situ residue by the procedure of Zinn and Owens (1986)Go.

Samples of feces and duodenal digesta were analyzed for DM, ash, CP, NDF, and ADF, as outlined previously. Samples were then prepared for Cr analysis, which was conducted by the spectrophotometric procedure of Fenton and Fenton (1979)Go.

Calculations and Statistical Analyses
Intake and fecal output were determined by direct measurement. Duodenal DM flow was calculated by dividing the daily marker dose by the marker concentration at the duodenum. Nutrient digestibilities were calculated from differences in nutrient flow of digesta at various sites of the gastrointestinal tract. True ruminal OM digestibilities were calculated from duodenal flows after corrections were made for bacterial contributions.

Duodenal flows of OM, NDF, ADF, N, and purines were determined by multiplying the specific component composition by duodenal DM flow. Duodenal bacterial N flow was estimated by multiplying the duodenal purine flow by the N:purine ratio in isolated bacterial cells. Rate of fluid passage was determined by regressing the natural log of ruminal Co concentrations on time (Grovum and Williams, 1973Go). The absolute value of the slope was defined as the fluid dilution rate. Fluid volume was determined by dividing Co dose by the estimated marker concentration at time zero.

Rates of in situ degradation of DM, NDF, and ADF were determined by fitting the percentage residual fraction (DM, NDF, or ADF) remaining to the nonlinear model of Mertens and Loften (1980)Go. Rate of in situ N disappearance (corrected for bacterial attachment using purines) was calculated using the model outlined by Ørskov and McDonald (1979)Go. This model was also used to divide the total forage N into rapidly (fraction A) and slowly degraded (fraction B) N fractions. The calculated rate of N degradation is associated with fraction B because the disappearance of fraction A is assumed to be nearly instantaneous. Computations associated with models used for in situ DM, NDF, ADF, and N degradation rates were conducted using the nonlinear (Marquardt method) procedures of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC).

Data were analyzed as a 4 x 4 Latin square with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Intake, digestion, fill, and passage rate were analyzed using GLM of SAS, with the model containing the effects of period, animal, intake, CSB addition, and intake level x CSB interactions. In the absence of intake level x CSB interactions, the main effects of intake and CSB are presented. In situ disappearance was analyzed as just described, with the additional factor of incubated forage type (with or without added CSB) included in the model. Ruminal fermentation was analyzed as a split-plot within a 4 x 4 Latin square. The model contained effects for animal, period, treatments, and time. Animal x period x intake x CSB was used as the error term for testing the main-plot effects.


    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
No intake level x CSB interactions were present (P = 0.18 to 0.85) in intake or digestion data (Table 2Go). By design, RE steers had lower (P = 0.01) DM and OM intake compared with AL-fed steers. Main effects of CSB level on DMI were not different. There were no differences in OM intake (4,619.8 and 4,785.8 ± 138.0; P = 0.43) expressed as g/d or g/kg of BW (14.2 and 14.3 ± 0.62; P = 0.86) between control and CSB-supplemented diets. However, within AL-fed steers, CSB tended (P = 0.12) to improve DMI (6,018 vs. 6,585 ± 195 g/d for 0 and 10% CSB, respectively). Lawler-Neville et al. (2006)Go reported that steers fed 10% CSB consumed more OM (6,660 vs. 5,683 ± 330 g) and N (184.4 vs. 141.5 ± 13.0 g) compared with nonsupplemented steers fed either corn stover or alfalfa-based diets. Additionally, Loe et al. (2002)Go reported that receiving steers consumed 9.8% more feed when 5% CSB was included in feedlot diets.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Influence of intake level and concentrated separator by-product (CSB) inclusion on intake and site of organic matter (OM) digestion in steers fed grass hay diets1
 
Stimulatory effects of cooked molasses block supplements on the intake of low-quality forages by cattle have been reported previously (Badurdeen et al., 1994Go; Greenwood et al., 1998Go). From experiments using CSB as an ingredient within cooked molasses blocks, Greenwood et al. (2000)Go reported increases in forage and total intake, total tract OM and N digestibilities, ruminal ammonia, and total VFA concentrations in steers fed 5.9% CP prairie hay (Greenwood et al., 2000Go). In research with steers fed medium (8.4% CP) to high (19.2% CP) quality forages and cooked molasses blocks containing CSB, Titgemeyer et al. (2004)Go found little change in intake and digestion measurements, which would tend to agree with the current study.

Response of cattle consuming forage-based diets to protein supplementation has been variable (Guthrie and Wagner, 1988Go; McCollum and Horn, 1990Go; Heldt et al., 1999Go) and may be explained by differences in degradable intake protein (DIP) of the basal feedstuff and supplement (Mathis et al., 2000Go; Bodine et al., 2001Go). In the study conducted by Mathis et al. (2000)Go, the basal forage CP (8.2%) content may have been adequate to meet the DIP requirements; consequently, intake responses to DIP were not observed. Similarly, the forage used in the current study was medium quality (12.5% CP). Variation in intake due to protein supplementation may be dependent on forage CP and DIP content; however, data from our laboratory indicate that when CSB is mixed with the basal diet, intake in both low and high-quality forage-based diets are increased (Lawler-Neville et al., 2006Go). In addition, including 5% CSB into receiving diets for beef steers has resulted in increased intake and gain (Loe et al., 2002Go).

Total tract digestion of DM and OM was not affected (P = 0.84 and 0.85, respectively) by either intake level or CSB supplementation (Table 2Go). Ruminal and post-ruminal digestion of DM and OM were not affected by CSB supplementation (P = 0.93, 0.60, 0.81, and 0.99, respectively); however, ruminal digestion of DM and OM was greater for AL-fed compared with RE-fed (P = 0.01) steers. Postruminal digestion of DM and OM was lower (P < 0.02) for AL-fed compared with RE-fed steers. Total tract digestion of NDF and ADF (data not shown) followed trends in OM digestion (P = 0.27 and 0.35, respectively) and averaged 57.3 ± 1.54, and 49.4 ± 1.72 for NDF and ADF, respectively.

Concentrated separator by-product and molasses have similar nutrient digestibility coefficients in forage-based diets (Wiedmeier et al., 1992Go). In a study using 4 Holstein cows, Wing et al. (1988)Go reported that peak digestibility of DM and OM occurred when a molasses-type liquid feed was added at 6% of the diet DM.

In our study, we selected a 10% inclusion level of CSB because data from our laboratory (Shellito, 2002Go) indicated that 10% inclusion increased intake and N retention. Additional work from our laboratory has shown that CSB inclusion into forage-based diets increased true ruminal OM digestion (Lawler-Neville et al., 2006Go). Reducing intake has been shown to improve digestibility of forage-based diets (Tyrrell and Moe, 1975Go). In this study, there were no effects of reduced intake on total tract digestion of DM, OM, NDF, and ADF. Reasons for this lack of response are unclear. Perhaps level of dietary restriction was insufficient to result in greater digestion coefficients. However, as discussed later, dietary restriction did increase (P ≥ 0.08) in situ digestion rates and reduce (P = 0.01) passage rate.

No intake level x CSB interactions were present and, by design, N intake was greater for AL-fed (P = 0.01) compared with RE-fed steers and 10% CSB (P = 0.02) compared with 0% CSB-fed steers (Table 3Go). Total, feed, fecal, and microbial duodenal flow of N was greater (P < 0.02) for AL compared with RE steers. Total and feed (nonbacterial) N flow at the duodenum was increased by CSB supplementation (P ≥ 0.06); however, microbial N flow to the duodenum was not affected by CSB (P = 0.80). Total tract digestion of N (CP divided by 6.25) was unaffected by intake level but was increased (P = 0.10) by CSB addition. Ruminal N digestion (apparent and true) and apparent postruminal N absorption (percentage of intake and percentage of entering) were greater (P = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively) in AL- compared with RE-fed steers and were not influenced by CSB additions (P = 0.25 and 0.99, respectively).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Influence of intake level and concentrated separator by-product (CSB) inclusion on duodenal N flows, N digestion, and microbial efficiency in steers fed grass hay diets1
 
Although total and feed N flow to the duodenum was greatest for both AL- and CSB-fed steers, microbial flow of N was influenced positively by AL intake only. Microbial protein synthesis (grams of microbial N per kilogram of OM truly fermented), however, was not influenced by intake level or CSB (P = 0.17 and 0.93, respectively).

Furthermore, increased apparent total tract N absorption for CSB-fed steers was probably due to increased feed N reaching the duodenum. Total tract digestion of N has been shown to be greater in steers consuming CSB-based molasses blocks compared with controls, while being fed poor quality forage (5.9% CP; Greenwood et al., 2000Go). Other data from our laboratory indicate that increased microbial N flow to the duodenum can result from CSB supplementation (Lawler-Neville et al., 2006Go).

In the absence of interactions (P = 0.14 to 0.85), main effects of intake, dietary CSB and type of forage incubated (with or without CSB additions) for in situ disappearance rates of DM, NDF, ADF, and N (CP divided by 6.25) are shown in Table 4Go. Restricting intake increased the rate of in situ DM, NDF, ADF, and N disappearance (P ≥ 0.08). Dietary CSB level did not affect rate of in situ disappearance of any component analyzed (P = 0.20 to 0.68). However, forage containing 10% CSB incubated in situ had a greater DM (P = 0.01) and N (P = 0.01) disappearance rate compared with forage containing no CSB. Digestion rate of NDF and ADF were unaffected by type of forage incubated. The rapidly degraded (fraction A) N fraction was greater (P = 0.01), whereas the slowly degraded (fraction B) N fraction was lower (P = 0.01) for the 10% CSB-incubated forage compared with nonsupplemented forage. In the current study, the differences observed with incubated forage type are likely due to the high ruminal degradability of CSB.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4. Influence of intake level, concentrated separator by-product (CSB) inclusion, and incubated forage CSB on the rate of in situ disappearance of DM, NDF, ADF, and N (corrected for bacterial attachment) in steers fed grass hay diets1
 
Increases in DM, NDF, ADF, and N disappearance rates observed for the RE-compared with AL-fed steers are similar to work reported by Zhao et al. (1993)Go, in which increases of in situ DM disappearance occurred when feed intake was decreased. When intake decreases, increases in digestibility can be due to several factors, including slower turnover rates of both particles and liquid in the digestive tract (Colucci et al., 1990Go), changes in the microbial population, or modifications of the ruminal wall such as absorptive capacity or metabolic activity (Fell and Weekes, 1975Go). Supplementation with CSB did not affect in situ disappearance rates; however, Lawler-Neville et al. (2006)Go reported that 10% CSB dietary addition increased in situ N disappearance rate.

No intake level x CSB interactions were present (P = 0.39 to 0.94) for ruminal fill and fluid passage rate data; therefore, main effect means are presented in Table 5Go. Fluid fill, calculated using data obtained from CoEDTA, was not influenced by intake (P = 0.46) or CSB (P = 0.27). Concentrated separator by-product had no effect on passage rate (P = 0.69) or total fill (P = 0.40). Colucci et al. (1990)Go reported that passage rates of liquid markers were faster at greater intake levels for both sheep and cattle. Ad libitum intakes in this study were also associated (P = 0.01) with a faster liquid passage rate. Total fill (calculated from ruminal evacuation data), DM, and fluid fill were greater (P < 0.05) for AL compared with restricted steers (Table 5Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5. Influence of intake level and concentrated separator by-product (CSB) inclusion on ruminal fill and fluid passage rates in steers fed grass hay diets1
 
Ruminal fluid passage rates were similar to those previously reported (Caton et al., 1988Go; Colucci et al., 1990Go). Although CSB did not affect passage rate in this study, Caton et al. (1988)Go reported that ruminal fluid passage rates were greater and retention times lower in protein-supplemented compared with nonprotein supplemented steers. Additionally, intake restriction has decreased rate of passage and resulted in greater retention times (Tamminga et al., 1979Go). In the current study, there was no difference in fluid fill (L; P = 0.27), liquid passage rate (%/h; P = 0.69), or total fill (kg; P = 0.40) when the diet contained CSB additions. Others (Hermesmeyer et al., 2002Go) have reported no difference in liquid dilution or particulate passage rate in steers restricted to 75% of AL intake of wheat middlings.

The absence of interactions allowed for fermentation data to be composited across time and main effects presented (Table 6Go). Ruminal pH was greater (P = 0.06) for RE steers compared with AL-fed steers but was not affected by supplementation with CSB (P = 0.74). Ruminal ammonia concentration was greater (P = 0.03) in the 0% CSB diets compared with the 10% CSB-fed diets. Total VFA concentration was greater in AL(P = 0.03) and CSB- (P = 0.04) fed steers compared with the RE- and control-fed steers, respectively. Acetate (P = 0.71), propionate (P = 0.83), and butyrate (P = 0.14) proportions were not different between RE and AL intakes. Likewise, acetate (P = 0.27), propionate (P = 0.83), valerate (P = 0.14), and isovalerate (P = 0.15) were not different in control and CSB-fed steers; however, butyrate concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) for CSB-fed steers. The acetate:propionate ratio was not influenced by either intake or CSB (P = 0.31 and 0.72, respectively).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 6. Influence of intake level and concentrated separator by-product (CSB) inclusion on ruminal pH, ammonia, and volatile fatty acid concentrations in steers fed grass hay diets1
 
Ruminal pH decreases with increasing VFA production (Kristensen et al., 2000Go). In the current study, greater (P = 0.06) ruminal pH values were observed for RE animals compared with AL steers, whereas ruminal pH was similar (P = 0.74) between CSB- and control-fed steers. The greater ruminal pH for restricted steers is probably a result of reduced microbial fermentation because of the lack of substrate availability. Similar to the findings of Greenwood et al. (2000)Go, total molar concentrations of VFA in the current study increased with CSB supplementation; however, increased total VFA concentrations were not enough to produce a change in ruminal pH for CSB-fed steers. These data indicate that the dietary restriction reduces and CSB supplementation increases total VFA concentrations in steers fed medium-quality grass hay.

Previous studies have shown reduced ruminal NH3 concentrations when animals consumed readily fermented carbohydrates. Stakelum et al. (1988)Go reported that supplements with or without molasses beet pulp reduced ruminal NH3 concentrations. Furthermore, Huhtanen (1987)Go and Rooke et al. (1987)Go reported that, in cattle receiving grass silage diets, sugar supplements have decreased ruminal ammonia concentrations and increased microbial protein synthesis. Restricting intake had no effect on ruminal ammonia level, which was similar to the findings of Hermesmeyer et al. (2002)Go.

In summary, CSB can provide a valuable source of supplemental dietary nitrogen for medium and lower-quality forage diets. At different levels of dietary intake, supplementing medium-quality forage with 10% CSB improves N intake, small intestinal protein supply, and increases total ruminal VFA.


    Footnotes
 
1 Gratitude is expressed to employees of the Animal Nutrition and Physiology Center and Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory for their contributions to this project. This research was partially supported by regional research funds (NC-189) and by the North Dakota Coproducts Initiative. Back

2 Present address: 1915 10th Street South, Moorhead, MN 56560. Back

3 Present address: Colby College, 1040 Golden St., Colby KS 67701. Back

4 Corresponding author: Joel.Caton{at}ndsu.edu

Received for publication November 30, 2004. Accepted for publication January 15, 2006.


    LITERATURE CITED
 Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 


AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA.

Badurdeen, A. L., M. N. M. Ibrahim, and S. S. E. Ranawana. 1994. Methods to improve utilization of rice straw. III. Effect of urea ammonia treatment and urea molasses blocks supplementation on intake, digestibility, rumen and blood parameters. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 7:363–372.

Bodine, T. N., H. T. Purvis II, and D. L. Lalman. 2001. Effects of supplement type on animal performance, forage intake, digestion, and ruminal measurements of growing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1041–1051.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Broderick, G. A., and J. H. Kang. 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J. Dairy Sci. 63:64–75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Caton, J. S., V. I. Burke, B. L. Anderson, L. A. Burgwald, P. L. Norton, and K. C. Olson. 1994. Influence of crambe meal as a protein source on intake, site of digestion, ruminal fermentation, and microbial efficiency in beef steers fed grass hay. J. Anim. Sci. 72:3238–3245.[Abstract]

Caton, J. S., A. S. Freeman, and M. L. Galyean. 1988. Influence of protein supplementation on forage intake, in situ forage disappearance, ruminal fermentation and digesta passage rates in steers grazing dormant blue grama rangeland. J. Anim. Sci. 66:2262–2271.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Colucci, P. E., G. K. Macleod, W. L. Grovum, I. McMillan, and D. J. Barney. 1990. Digesta kinetics in sheep and cattle fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios at high and low intakes. J. Dairy Sci. 73:2143–2156.[Abstract]

Fell, B. F., and T. E. C. Weekes. 1975. Food intake as a mediator of adaptation in the ruminal epithelium. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. I. W. McDonald, and A. C. I. Warner, ed. Univ. New England Publ. Unit, Armidale, Australia.

Fenton, T. W., and M. Fenton. 1979. An improved procedure for the determination of chromic oxide in feed and feces. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59:631–634.

Goering, H. K., and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications). Agric. Handbook No 379. ARS, USDA, Washington, DC.

Goetsch, A. L., and M. L. Galyean. 1983. Influence of feeding frequency on passage of fluid and particulate markers in steers fed a concentrate diet. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 63:727–735.

Greenwood, R. H., E. C. Titgemeyer, and J. S. Drouillard. 2000. Effects of base ingredient in cooked molasses blocks on intake and digestion of prairie hay by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 78:167–172.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Greenwood, R. H., E. C. Titgemeyer, C. A. Löest, and J. S. Drouillard. 1998. Effects of supplement strategy on intake and digestion of prairie hay by beef steers and plasma amino acid concentrations. Prof. Anim. Sci. 14:56–61.

Grovum, W. L., and V. J. Williams. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in feces. Br. J. Nutr. 30:313–329.[Medline]

Guthrie, M. J., and D. G. Wagner. 1988. Influence of protein or grain supplementation and increasing levels of soybean meal on intake, utilization and passage rate of prairie hay in beef steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1529–1537.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Heldt, J. S., R. C. Cochran, C. P. Mathis, K. C. Olson, B. C. Woods, E. C. Titgemeyer, T. G. Nagaraja, E. S. Van Zant, and D. E. Johnson. 1999. Effects of level and source of carbohydrate and level of degradable intake protein on intake and digestion of low-quality tallgrass prairie hay by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:2846–2854.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hermesmeyer, G. N., L. L. Berger, N. R. Merchen, and T. G. Nash. 2002. Effects of restricted and ad libitum intake of diets containing wheat middlings on site and extent of digestion in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 80:812–817.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Huhtanen, P. 1987. The effects of intraruminal infusions of sucrose and xylose on nitrogen and fibre digestion in the rumen and intestines of cattle receiving diets of grass silage and barley. J. Agric. Sci. 59:405–424.

Johnson, J. A., J. S. Caton, W. Poland, D. R. Kirby, and D. V. Dhuyvetter. 1998. Influence of season on dietary composition, intake, and digestion by beef steers grazing mixed-grass prairie in the northern Great Plains. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1682–1690.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kristensen, N. B., S. G. Pierzynowski, and A. Danfær. 2000. Net portal appearance of volatile fatty acids in sheep intraruminally infused with mixtures of acetate, proprionate, isobutyrate, butyrate, and valerate. J. Anim. Sci. 78:1372–1379.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lawler-Neville, T. L., S. M. Shellito, T. D. Maddock, M. L. Bauer, G. P. Lardy, T. C. Gilbery, and J. S. Caton. 2006. Effects of concentrated separator byproduct (desugared molasses) on intake, site of digestion, microbial efficiency, and nitrogen balance in ruminants fed forage-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 84.

Loe, E. R., M. L. Bauer, G. P. Lardy, and J. S. Caton. 2002. Effect of dietary inclusion of concentrated separator byproduct and weaning management on performance of newly received feedlot steers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 100:43–52.

Mathis, C. P., R. C. Cochran, J. S. Heldt, B. C. Woods, I. E. O. Abdelgadir, K. C. Olson, E. C. Titgemeyer, and E. S. Vanzant. 2000. Effects of supplemental degradable intake protein on utilization of medium- to low-quality forages. J. Anim. Sci. 78:224–232.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

McCollum, F. T., III, and G. W. Horn. 1990. Protein supplementation of grazing livestock. A review. Prof. Anim. Sci. 6:1–16.[Medline]

Merchen, N. R., and L. D. Satter. 1983. Digestion of nitrogen by lambs fed alfalfa conserved as baled hay or as low moisture silage. J. Anim. Sci. 56:943–951.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Mertens, D. R., and J. R. Loften. 1980. The effects of starch on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1437–1446.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

NRC. 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Ørskov, E. R., and I. McDonald. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 92:499–503.

Rooke, J. A., N. H. Lee, and D. G. Armstrong. 1987. The effects of intraruminal infusions of urea, casein, and glucose syrup and a mixture of casein and glucose syrup on nitrogen digestion in the rumen of cattle receiving grass-silage diets. Br. J. Nutr. 57:89–98.[Medline]

Shellito, S. M. 2002. Concentrated separator byproduct supplementation of ruminants fed grass hay diets. M. S. Thesis, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo.

Stakelum, G., P. Dillon, and J. Murphy. 1988. The effect of concentrate type on the rumen fermentation patterns of grass fed cows and dry matter and crude protein degradability of the herbage. Proc. 12th General Mtg. Eur. Grassl. Fed., Dublin, Ireland. Irish Grassl. Assoc., Belclare, Tuam Co., Galway, Ireland.

Tamminga, S. C., J. Van Der Koelen, and A. M. van Wauren. 1979. Effects of the level of feed intake on nitrogen entering the small intestine of dairy cows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 6:225–262.

Titgemeyer, E. C., J. S. Drouillard, R. H. Greenwood, J. W. Ringler, D. J. Bindel, R. D. Hunter, and T. Nutsch. 2004. Effect of forage quality on digestion and performance responses of cattle to supplementation with cooked molasses blocks. J. Anim. Sci. 82:487–494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tyrrell, H. F., and P. W. Moe. 1975. Effect of intake on digestive efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 58:1151–1163.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Uden, P., P. E. Colucci, and P. J. Van Soest. 1980. Investigations of chromium, cerium, and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. J. Sci. Food Agric. 31:625–632.[Medline]

Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583–3597.[Abstract]

Wiedmeier, R. D., B. H. Tanner, J. R. Bair, H. T. Shenton, M. J. Arambel, and J. L. Walters. 1992. Effects of a new molasses byproduct, on nutrient digestibility and ruminal fermentation in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1936–1940.[Abstract]

Wing, J. M., H. H. Van Horn, S. D. Sklare, and B. Harris, Jr. 1988. Effects of citrus molasses and distillers solubles and molasses on rumen parameters and lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 71:414–420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Zhao, Y. Z., M. Shimojo, and I. Goto. 1993. The effects of feeding level and roughage/concentrate ratio on the measurement of protein degradability of two tropical forages in the rumen of goats, using the nylon bag technique. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 41:261–272.

Zinn, R. A., and F. N. Owens. 1986. A rapid procedure for purine measurement and its uses for estimating net ruminal protein synthesis. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 66:157–165.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J ANIM SCIHome page
T. L. Lawler-Neville, S. M. Shellito, T. D. Maddock, M. L. Bauer, G. P. Lardy, T. C. Gilbery, and J. S. Caton
Effects of concentrated separator by-product (desugared molasses) on intake, site of digestion, microbial efficiency, and nitrogen balance in ruminants fed forage-based diets
J Anim Sci, August 1, 2006; 84(8): 2232 - 2242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Shellito, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Caton, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shellito, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Caton, J. S.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS