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

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

Effects of an artificial sweetener on health, performance, and dietary preference of feedlot cattle¹

J. P. McMeniman^*,2, J. D. Rivera^*,3, P. Schlegel, W. Rounds and M. L. Galyean^*

^* Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409-2141; and Pancosma, SA, Geneva, Switzerland; and and Prince Agri Products Inc., Quincy, IL 62306

	Abstract

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

 
Two experiments examined the effects of a saccharin-based artificial sweetener (Sucram) on health, performance, and dietary preference of feedlot cattle. In Exp. 1, 200 steer calves (initial BW = 190.4 ± 1.47 kg) were fed a 65% concentrate diet supplemented with or without 200 mg of Sucram/kg (DM basis) during a 56-d receiving-growing period. Feeding Sucram did not affect overall (P = 0.19) DMI; however, from d 29 to 56, there was a trend (P = 0.10) for increased DMI with Sucram (5.71 vs. 6.02 kg/d, respectively). From d 0 to 28 and d 0 to 56, there were trends (P = 0.11 and 0.12, respectively) for increased ADG and for increased d-56 BW (P = 0.07) for calves fed Sucram. No differences were detected (P = 0.82) for receiving (REC) period morbidity. During the finishing (FIN) period, 180 steers from the REC period were assigned (9 pens/treatment in a 2 x 2 factorial design) to the following treatments: 1) control REC/control FIN; 2) control REC/Sucram FIN; 3) Sucram REC/control FIN; and 4) Sucram REC/ Sucram FIN. Over the FIN period, ADG tended (P = 0.12) to be greater for Sucram; however, carcass-adjusted ADG did not differ among treatments. Daily DMI was affected by a REC x FIN interaction (P = 0.08), which was the result of greater DMI by cattle in the Sucram REC/Sucram FIN treatment and decreased DMI by cattle in the Sucram REC/control FIN treatment. In general, changes in carcass characteristics were minor. In Exp. 2, 12 steers (initial BW = 395.6 ± 6.17 kg) were used in a simultaneously replicated 3 x 3 Latin square preference test. Each square consisted of 3 pens, with 2 steers/pen, and 3 time periods. Bunks had dividers at their midpoint, and equal quantities of diet (as-fed basis) were delivered randomly on either side of the divider daily. Treatments were: 1) control; 2) Sucram = basal diet supplemented with 200 mg of Sucram/kg of DM; and 3) choice = control and Sucram on separate sides of the divider. Dietary preference differed on d 1 (P = 0.01) and d 3 (P = 0.02) for control vs. choice and Sucram vs. choice, with the choice group consuming 0.49 and 1.72 kg of DM more of the Sucram diet than the control diet, respectively. This effect, however, was not consistent across days, and average DMI did not differ (P = 0.81) among treatments. Addition of Sucram to the diet of newly received cattle tended to increase receiving period ADG; however, its effects on morbidity, finishing performance, and dietary preference were limited.

Key Words: cattle • feed intake • morbidity • preference • sweetener

	INTRODUCTION

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

 
Intake of DM by feedlot cattle is sometimes inadequate to optimize performance. For example, lightweight (e.g., <200 kg) newly received calves often have decreased DMI as a result of stressors imposed during weaning, marketing, transportation, and processing. A high incidence of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is often observed in these animals. Adequate nutrition is essential to maintain the integrity of the immune system, and decreased feed intake may exacerbate an animal’s susceptibility to infection by interacting with preweaning nutritional deficiencies (Galyean et al., 1999). Thus, strategies aimed at increasing DMI or nutrient intake or both by newly received cattle may hold merit for decreasing morbidity and increasing feedlot performance.

One strategy by which DMI by stressed calves might be increased is to improve the palatability of the diet. Taste is a key component of the palatability complex. If a calf associates a favorable response (e.g., a sweet taste) with a visit to the feed bunk, DMI might be increased. Research on adding sweeteners or other flavoring agents to the diets of feedlot cattle is limited. Sucrose supplementation of dairy cattle has been investigated, although the intake response to sucrose supplementation has been variable (Nombekela and Murphy, 1995; Murphy et al., 1997; Broderick et al., 2000). A common artificial sweetener for use in human diets is sodium saccharin, which is 300 to 500 times sweeter than sucrose and has been shown to influence dietary preference in rats (Smith and Sclafani, 2002). In initial research with Sucram (a sodium saccharin-based sweetener), Brown et al. (2004) fed 0, 97, 194, and 291 mg/kg to stressed calves and observed a 17.2% greater overall DMI (P = 0.04) by calves supplemented with 194 mg of Sucram/kg during a 56-d receiving experiment.

Therefore, the objective of the present studies was to further determine effects of Sucram on health, performance, and dietary preference of feedlot cattle.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

 
The Texas Tech University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved the procedures used in these experiments.

Experiment 1—Receiving and Finishing Trial
Cattle.
Two hundred steer calves (British x Continental; average initial BW = 190.4 kg) were shipped 1,588 km from West Point, MS, to the Texas Tech University Burnett Center at New Deal, TX, in mid November. During the 16-h transit, steers lost 5.7% of their preshipment BW of 201.9 kg. Immediately after unloading, the cattle were processed, which included: 1) measurement of individual BW; 2) identification with a uniquely numbered ear tag; 3) vaccination with a modified live virus vaccine (Titanium 5, Agri-Labs, Des Moines, IA) and Clostridium chavoei, C. septicum, C. novyi, sordelli, and C. perfringens type C and D bacterin toxoid (Vision 7 with SPUR, Intervet, Millsboro, DE); 4) treatment with 35 mL of topical moxidectin (Cydectin, Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, KS); and 5) tipping of horns as needed.

Treatment Assignment, Management, and Weighing Procedures.
The experiment was subdivided into receiving and finishing periods. For the receiving period, 16 soil-surfaced pens were used (4.9 m x 30.5 m; linear bunk space = 4.9 m), with 12 to 13 steers/pen. Treatments were control (no added sweetener) or 200 mg of Sucram/kg (DM basis; Sucram C-150, Pancosma, SA, Geneva, Switzerland; distributed by Prince Agri-Products, Quincy, IL) added to the 65% concentrate receiving diet and 75% concentrate growing diet, both of which were formulated to contain 13.5% CP (Table 1). Sucram was added in a premix with ground corn at approximately 0.25% of the dietary DM, whereas animals in the control treatment were fed a premix composed of ground corn only (Table 1). At the time of initial processing, steers were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 pens (the pair of pens constituted a location block), and the 2 treatments were assigned randomly to the pens within each block. Thus, there were 8 pens per treatment (8 location blocks) during the receiving period.

All cattle were monitored daily for morbidity, and those with signs of BRD (labored breathing, nasal/ ocular discharge, depression, anorexia) were removed from their pen for a more thorough evaluation. When the rectal temperature of a calf that had been pulled from the pen was greater or equal to 39.7°C, the animal was given antimicrobial therapy (according to label directions) and returned to its pen. The first time an animal was treated, it received tilmicosin phosphate (Micotil, Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN) plus sterile penicillin G benzathine and penicillin G procaine (Aspen Veterinary Resources, Kansas City, MO). Animals that required a second treatment received florfenicol (Nuflor, Schering Plough Animal Health, Union, NJ), and those requiring a third treatment received long-acting oxytetracycline (Maxim 200, Phoenix Pharmaceutical Inc., St. Joseph, MO) plus sulfamethazine boluses (Albon SR, Pfizer, Exton, PA).

On d 56, all steers were switched to an 82% concentrate diet (Table 1). For the finishing period of the experiment, treatments were arranged in a 2 x 2 factorial, with factors being receiving period treatment (control or Sucram) and finishing period treatment (i.e., with or without feeding of Sucram during the finishing period). Based on d-56 BW (e.g., animals of the lightest BW in each treatment group were not used) and health status (e.g., cattle that received 3 treatments for BRD were not used) during the receiving period, 180 animals (an equal number from the 2 receiving treatments) were selected for use in the finishing period. At this time, it was determined that 2 animals to be used in the finishing period were bulls, and they were subsequently surgically castrated. The 180 steers were sorted to 9 BW blocks and assigned to 36 concrete, partially slotted-floor pens (2.9 m x 5.6 m; bunk space = 2.4 m), resulting in 9 pens per each of the following treatments: 1) control during receiving/ control during finishing; 2) control during receiving/ Sucram during finishing; 3) Sucram during receiving/ control during finishing; and 4) Sucram during receiving/Sucram during finishing (Table 1).

As in the receiving period, Sucram was added in a premix with ground corn at approximately 0.25% of the dietary DM, to supply 200 mg of Sucram/kg (DM basis) in the 82 and 90% concentrate diets (formulated to contain 13% CP; Table 1). The process of selection and sorting of cattle into treatment groups for the finishing period was accomplished over a 4-d period; thus, steers were weighed and moved to their assigned pens, and the finishing-period dietary treatments began on d 60.

Cattle remained on the 82% concentrate diet for the next 14 d, after which they were switched to the final 90% concentrate diet (Table 1). Intermediate BW measurements were typically collected on a pen basis at 28-d intervals during the finishing period of the study, except at d 112, when the cattle were reimplanted (Revalor S; 120 mg of trenbolone acetate, 24 mg of estradiol, Intervet), and on the day the cattle were shipped to slaughter, at which time individual BW measurements were obtained.

During the receiving and finishing periods, feed bunks were evaluated visually each day to determine the quantity of feed to offer to each pen. The bunk management approach resulted in 0 to 0.23 kg of feed remaining in the bunks at the time of evaluation. Diets were delivered once daily at approximately 0800 with a Rotomix 84-8 (Rotomix Inc., Dodge City, KS) self-propelled mixer-delivery unit, with the mixer mounted on load cells (scale precision of ± 0.454 kg).

Diet Analyses.
Samples of feed for each treatment were collected weekly from the Rotomix 84-8 mixer-delivery unit throughout the experiment and composited within weigh periods. In addition, at each weigh period (and at d 7 and 14 of the receiving period), feed bunks were swept, and any feed remaining in the bunks was weighed, and its DM content determined. Samples of dietary ingredients were taken every 2 wk during the experiment to measure DM, which was determined by drying samples for approximately 22 h in a forced-air oven at 100°C. Samples of feed delivered to the bunks were analyzed for nutrient content (AOAC, 1990) in laboratory facilities at Texas Tech University (Table 1).

Carcass Evaluation.
When approximately 60% of the steers within a given BW block were visually estimated (BW and visual assessment of fatness) to have sufficient finish to grade USDA Choice, all animals in the block were weighed individually and sent via commercial transport to a USDA-inspected slaughter facility (Excel Inc., Plainview, TX) for collection of carcass measurements. Carcass data were collected by personnel of the Cattlemen’s Carcass Data Service, West Texas A&M University, Canyon. Measurements included HCW, calculated yield grade, quality grade, marbling score, percentage of KPH, LM area, 12th rib fat thickness, and incidence of liver abscesses.

Statistical Analyses.
Performance data for the receiving period were analyzed as a randomized complete block design with 2 treatments, whereas finishing-period performance and carcass data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. The MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) was used for these analyses, with block as a random effect. Preliminary analysis of the data indicated significant (P < 0.05) receiving and finishing effects for initial BW during the finishing experiment, which resulted from the blocking of finishing treatments being restricted by receiving-period treatment. Thus, initial BW was used as a covariate in the model for finishing period data. Morbidity data for the receiving period were analyzed using the Glimmix procedure of SAS, assuming a binomial distribution. As with the performance data, treatment was the fixed effect, and block was considered a random effect. The USDA quality grade data (proportion grading below or at and above USDA Choice) also were analyzed with the Glimmix procedure (binomial distribution) using the same model as for the analysis of feedlot performance and other carcass data.

Experiment 2—Preference Trial
Cattle.
Two weeks before the beginning of the experiment, 12 steers (British and Continental breeding) with the heaviest BW were selected from a larger group of 81 steers for use in a simultaneously replicated 3 x 3 Latin square dietary preference test. These cattle had been fed a restricted quantity of a 65% concentrate diet for the previous 2 mo. After selection, the steers were housed together in a soil-surfaced pen (4.9 m x 30.5 m) and were transitioned to ad libitum intake by feeding a 75% concentrate diet once daily at 0800 in increasing quantities.

Treatment Assignment.
Eight days before the beginning of the experiment, the cattle (average initial BW = 395.6 ± 6.17 kg) were weighed at 0700 and allocated to pens and dietary treatments. Each Latin square consisted of 3 pens (2 steers/pen) and 3 feeding periods. Each of the 3 feeding periods of the Latin square consisted of a 5-d adaptation period followed by a 5-d data collection period, resulting in a total of 30 d for the experiment. Steers were stratified by BW, with the 6 heaviest animals allocated to the first Latin square and the 6 lightest animals allocated to the second Latin square. Steers in each Latin square were further stratified in descending order by BW and allocated within strata to 1 of 3 pens.

Pens (partially slotted concrete) were 2.9 m wide x 5.6 m long and provided 2.4 m of bunk space/steer. Each feed bunk had a wooden divider at the midpoint, providing 1.2 m of bunk space on either side of the divider.

Treatments consisted of 1) control = a 77.5% concentrate diet delivered daily on both sides of the divider; 2) Sucram = a 77.5% concentrate diet supplemented with 200 mg of Sucram/kg of DM delivered daily on both sides of the bunk divider; and 3) choice = a 77.5% concentrate diet supplemented with or without 200 mg of Sucram/kg of DM delivered daily on either side of the bunk divider (Table 2). Daily delivery of the Sucram and control diets in the choice treatment were alternated randomly between sides of the bunk divider to prevent positional bias. Sucram was added in a pre-mix with ground corn at approximately 0.50% of the dietary DM to supply 200 mg of Sucram/kg of DM in the complete diet.

Diet Analyses.
During the data collection period, diet samples (2/period) were collected (from the Rotomix 84-8 mixer-delivery unit) and were analyzed for DM by drying for approximately 22 h in a forced-air oven at 100°C. Samples of dietary ingredients were taken every 2 wk during the experiment to determine DM content. Composite samples of the 2 diets fed during the study were analyzed by SDK Laboratories (Hutchinson, KS) for measurement of CP, ADF, fat, Ca, P, and K (Table 2).

Statistical Analyses.
For each day of the three 5-d measurement periods, DMI on both sides of the feed bunk was calculated. Dietary preference within the choice treatment was calculated as Sucram diet DMI minus control diet DMI. For control and Sucram treatments, dietary preference was calculated based on orientation (left or right) of Sucram and control diets in the choice treatment for a given day. A positive value indicated a preference for Sucram over the control diet in the choice treatment or, or a preference for the same side of the bunk as the Sucram diet (applied to the choice treatment) in the control and Sucram treatments. A negative value indicates a preference for the control diet in the choice treatment or the same side of the bunk as the control diet (applied to the choice treatment) in the control and Sucram treatments.

The daily DMI differences and DMI for each treatment were subsequently analyzed as a simultaneously replicated Latin square with repeated measures using the MIXED procedure of SAS. The model included fixed effects of treatment, day, and treatment x day, and the random effects of square, period, and pen nested within square. The repeated term was day, and the subject of the repeated measure was defined as pen nested within square x period combinations. The variance-covariance structure of the repeated measures was evaluated with unstructured, autoregressive, and compound symmetry covariance structures, with homogeneous or heterogeneous variance. Based on Akaike and Schwarz’s Bayesian information criteria, the unstructured covariance structure was found to provide the best fit for the DMI differences, whereas the autoregressive heterogeneous structure provided the best fit for the daily DMI data. Pairwise differences among preference estimates for the 3 treatments were evaluated using the PDIFF option of the MIXED procedure.

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

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

 
Experiment 1—Receiving Period
Sucram did not affect DMI during the first 28 d or overall (d 0 to 56); however, during the second half of the receiving period (d 29 to 56), there was a trend (P = 0.10) for increased DMI by cattle consuming the Sucram diet (Table 3). Average daily gain did not differ between treatments during the first 14 d of the study; however, from d 0 to 28, d 0 to 56, and d 29 to 56 there were trends (P = 0.11, 0.12, and 0.11, respectively) for increased ADG by steers fed Sucram, coinciding with the trend for increased DMI by cattle fed Sucram during the second half of the receiving period (Table 3). A trend for increased final (d 56) BW of calves fed Sucram also was evident (P = 0.07; Table 3). Gain efficiency was not affected by treatment, except between d 0 to 28, when Sucram increased gain efficiency (P = 0.01; Table 3).

The trend observed for increased DMI during the second half (d 29 to 56) of the receiving period coincided with the change from a 65 to 75% concentrate diet. Galyean and Defoor (2003) reported that dietary roughage NDF is a reasonably good predictor of effects of roughage source on DMI by feedlot cattle. Different percent concentrate diets may differ in sensory properties such as appearance, odor, taste and texture, as well as the metabolic and physical feedback mechanisms controlling feed intake. Nonetheless, further research would be required to determine whether an interaction exists between dietary roughage concentration and Sucram in receiving and growing diets. Another possible reason for the tendency for a greater response in DMI to Sucram during the second half of the receiving period could be that high levels of morbidity (59.7 vs. 58.0% for control and Sucram, respectively) combined with environmental, physical, and psychological stressors, decreased DMI in both treatment groups early in the receiving period. Proinflammatory cytokines associated with the immune response to infection may decrease feed intake (Broussard et al., 2001; Johnson and Finck, 2001). The multifactorial control of feed intake makes it difficult to delineate factors regulating DMI of the diets fed in the receiving period of our study.

Experiment 1—Finishing Period
Simple-effect means for performance data for the finishing period are shown in Table 5, and carcass data are presented in Table 6. Probability values are shown for the main effects of receiving-period treatment, finishing-period treatment, and the receiving x finishing interaction.

A trend for a receiving x finishing interaction (P = 0.08) was detected for DMI during the finishing period. Essentially, this interaction was the result of greater DMI by cattle fed Sucram in both the receiving and finishing periods than by cattle in the other 3 treatment groups. Indeed, adding Sucram at 200 mg/kg of the dietary DM to the finishing diet of cattle that had been fed the control diet during the receiving period had no effect on DMI compared with cattle that never received Sucram. Cattle fed Sucram during the receiving period and then switched to the control diet during the finishing period consumed the least DM during most of the cumulative periods of finishing, which also contributed to the receiving x finishing interaction. Reasons for the differential effects of Sucram on DMI by cattle during the receiving and finishing periods are unclear, but this finding may imply that cattle fed Sucram during receiving became accustomed to it and removal during the finishing period tended to decrease DMI.

The NRC (1996) provides equations that allow calculation of dietary NE_m and NE_g concentrations based on performance data. Basically, this approach involves solving for the NE_m and NE_g values that would be required to yield the observed performance data. For these calculations, the average initial and final shrunk (multiplied by 0.96) BW and the d 0 to end DMI shown in Table 6 were used, with shrunk ADG calculated from the BW data and an average days on feed of 186.2. The resulting performance-based dietary NE_m concentrations (Mcal/kg of DM) were 2.27, 2.28, 2.27, and 2.26 for the control receiving/control finishing, control receiving/Sucram finishing, Sucram receiving/ control finishing, and Sucram receiving/Sucram finishing treatments, respectively. Similarly, the performance-based dietary NE_g concentrations were 1.58, 1.59, 1.58, and 1.57 Mcal/kg of DM, respectively, for the 4 treatment combinations. Performance-based values were approximately 5 to 7% greater than values based on NRC (1996) tabular data for the feedstuffs used in the diets (Table 1), but calculated NE values obviously differed little among treatments.

The carcass measurements of HCW, KPH percent, and fat thickness were largely unaffected by receiving and finishing period treatments (Table 6). Dressing percent was greater (P = 0.11) for cattle fed the control diet during the finishing period. A receiving x finishing interaction existed for USDA yield grade (P = 0.09). This interaction reflected decreased yield grade for cattle fed the control receiving/Sucram finishing combination compared with those fed the control receiving/ control finishing combination. Decreased yield grade also was observed in cattle fed the Sucram receiving/ control finishing combination vs. the Sucram receiving/Sucram finishing combination.

Marbling score was increased (P = 0.04) for cattle fed the control diet vs. those fed Sucram during the receiving period (Table 6). The increased marbling score of cattle fed the control diet during the receiving period, however, did not produce changes in quality grade; the percentage of carcasses grading USDA Choice or Prime did not differ among treatments. Reasons for the increased marbling score of cattle fed the control diet during the receiving period are not readily apparent. Occurrence of abscessed livers was typical for cattle at the Texas Tech University Burnett Center, and these data were not analyzed statistically because of the low rates in various abscess categories.

Drager et al. (2004) studied the effect of Sucram (0 or 198.4 mg/kg of DM), on finishing period performance and carcass characteristics in heavy crossbred steers (486 kg of average BW; 39 steers; 3 pens/treatment). Feedlot performance and carcass characteristics (P > 0.22) were not influenced by the inclusion of Sucram, a finding that is similar to our results. For the overall feeding period, effects of adding Sucram to the diet were small, but it is noteworthy that interactions with receiving-period treatment affected finishing-period DMI. Thus, the optimal duration of feeding Sucram in beef cattle diets needs further study; however, our data suggest that benefits seem greater early in the feeding process (the receiving period) than later (the finishing period).

Experiment 2—Preference Trial
Results of Exp. 2 are shown in Table 7. Overall, the effects of treatment (P = 0.22) and day (P = 0.33) were not significant, but a significant treatment x day interaction (P = 0.03) was detected for preference. Thus, differences among the least squares means on individual days were examined. As expected, dietary preference where no diet choice was offered (control and Sucram treatments; same diet on both sides of the bunk divider) was largely not different (P = 0.79 to 0.96). Nonetheless, on d 2, animals fed the control treatment had a greater dietary preference (P = 0.01) than those in the Sucram or choice treatments (i.e., the difference in DMI between the 2 sides of the bunk was greatest for the control treatment). Reasons for this response are unknown. A difference in dietary preference was detected on d 1 (P = 0.01) and d 3 (P = 0.02) of the 5-d period for control vs. choice and Sucram vs. choice comparisons, with cattle provided the choice treatment consuming 0.49 and 1.72 kg of DM more of the Sucram diet than the control diet, respectively. This effect, however, was not consistently present across days (Table 7). Daily DMI intake variation by steers fed these concentrate-based diets ad libitum may have contributed to the inconsistency of these observations. Average DMI did not differ among treatments (P = 0.81; Table 7).

	IMPLICATIONS

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

 
Results of the present studies suggest that the addition of 200 mg of Sucram per kilogram of dry matter to the diet of newly received calves tended to increase body weight at the end of the receiving period. Effects of Sucram on morbidity, finishing performance, carcass characteristics, and dietary preference with high-concentrate diets were, however, relatively minor. The benefit of Sucram might depend on the incidence and severity of morbidity of newly received calves, as well as the physical and chemical characteristics of the diet consumed.

	Footnotes

 
¹ Supported in part by funding from Pancosma S.A., Geneva, Switzerland, and Prince Agri-Products, Quincy, IL. We thank Fort Dodge Anim. Health (Overland Park, KS) and Intervet (Millsboro, DE) for supplying products used in cattle processing; Elanco Animal Heath (Indianapolis, IN) for supplying Rumensin, Tylan, and Micotil; and DSM Nutritional Products Inc. (Parsippany, NJ) for supplying vitamins A and E. The efforts of K. Robinson and R. Rocha in assisting with the conduct of this research are greatly appreciated.

³ Present address: Eli Lilly, Monterrey, Mexico.

² Corresponding author: joe.mcmeniman{at}ttu.edu

Received for publication February 17, 2006. Accepted for publication May 6, 2006.

	LITERATURE CITED

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

 


AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 14th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA.

Broderick, G. A., N. D. Luchini, W. J. Smith, S. Reynal, G. A. Varga, and V. A. Isheler. 2000. Effect of replacing dietary starch with sucrose on milk production in lactating dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 78(Suppl. 1):248. (Abstr.)

Broussard, S. R., J. H. Zhou, H. D. Venters, R. M. Bluthe, G. G. Freund, R. W. Johnson, R. Dantzer, and K. W. Kelley. 2001. At the interface of environment-immune interactions: Cytokine and growth-factor receptors. J. Anim. Sci. 79(Suppl. E):E268–E284.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brown, M. S., C. D. Drager, E. M. Cochran, E. A. Lauterbach, W. Rounds, and P. Schlegel. 2004. Effects of a dietary sweetener on performance and health of stressed calves. Pages 101–103 in Beef Cattle Research in Texas 2004. Dep. Anim. Sci. Texas A&M Univ., College Station. Available: http://animalscience.tamu.edu/ansc/beef/bcrt/2004/brown_3.pdf Accessed April 28, 2006.

Drager, C. D., M. S. Brown, E. M. Cochran, E. A. Lauterbach, T. J. Biggs, and W. Rounds. 2004. Effects of a dietary sweetener on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 82(Suppl. 2.):23. (Abstr.)

Galyean, M. L., L. J. Perino, and G. C. Duff. 1999. Interaction of cattle health/immunity and nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1120–1134.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Galyean, M. L., and P. J. Defoor. 2003. Effect of roughage source and level on intake by feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 81(E Suppl. 2):E8–E16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Johnson, R. W., and B. N. Finck. 2001. Tumor necrosis factor and leptin: Two players in an animal’s metabolic and immunologic responses to infection. J. Anim. Sci. 79(Suppl. E):E118–E127.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Larson, D. A. 1995. Dietary preference and its relationship to feed intake. Pages 312–325 in Symposium: Intake by Feedlot Cattle. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn. P-942. Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.

Lofgreen, G. P. 1983. Nutrition and management of stressed beef calves. Vet. Clin. North Am. Large Anim. Pract. 5:87–101.[Medline]

Murphy, M. R., A. W. P. Geijsel, E. C. Hall, and R. D. Shanks. 1997. Dietary variety via sweetening and voluntary feed intake of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80:894–897.[Abstract]

Nombekela, S. W., and M. R. Murphy. 1995. Sucrose supplementation and feed intake of dairy cows in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 78:880–885.[Abstract]

Nombekela, S. W., M. R. Murphy, H. W. Gonyou, and J. I. Marden. 1994. Dietary preferences in early lactation cows as affected by primary tastes and some common feed flavors. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2393–2399.[Abstract]

NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Rivera, J. D., J. T. Richeson, M. L. Galyean, W. Rounds, and P. Schlegel. 2004. Effects of an artificial sweetener (Sucram C-150) on performance and health of newly received beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 82(Suppl. 1):350. (Abstr.)

Smith, J. C., and A. Sclafani. 2002. Saccharin as a sugar surrogate revisited. Appetite 38:155–160.[CrossRef][Medline]

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