|Carroll, Jeffery - Jeff Carroll|
Submitted to: Joint Meeting of the ADSA, AMSA, ASAS and PSA
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 3/15/2007
Publication Date: 7/7/2007
Citation: Reuter, R., Carroll, J.A., Brown, M., Forsberg, N., Wang, Y., Mock, R., Chapman, J., Galyean, M. 2007. Effect of an artificial sweetener and yeast product combination on immune function measurements, growth performance, and carcass characteristics of beef heifers [abstract]. Journal of Animal Science. 85(Suppl. 1):370. Abstract No. 402. Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: One hundred ninety-nine crossbred beef heifer calves (205 ± 7.9 kg initial BW) were used in a 44-d receiving trial with 2 dietary treatments (9 pens/treatment) in a completely random design. Diets were a steam-flaked corn and alfalfa hay-based control (CON) diet or the same diet (ADD) with added artificial sweetener (Sucram; Prince Agri-Products; 198 mg/kg of diet DM) and a source of yeast and B-complex vitamins (OmniGen-AF; Prince Agri-Products; 0.8% of diet DM). Heifers were weighed and bled on d 0, 16, 30, and 44 after arrival at the feedlot. Serum was collected from jugular venipuncture blood samples and analyzed for cortisol, cytokine, and acute-phase protein concentrations, L-selectin expression, and respiratory virus titer. At d 44, the heifers were transported to a commercial feedlot, fed for 200 d, and individual carcass data were collected at slaughter. Morbidity (9.5%) and mortality (0.5%) were less than expected and not affected by treatment (P > 0.63). On d 16, ADD decreased (P < 0.001) haptoglobin concentration, but diet did not affect (P > 0.43) other measures of immune function. Diet had no effect on ADG, DMI, or G:F (P > 0.32) in either the initial 16-d after arrival or the overall 44-d receiving period. Receiving period diet had no effect on carcass characteristics, except that ADD decreased marbling score (P = 0.045), marbling score adjusted to a constant fat thickness (P = 0.08), and tended (P = 0.11) to decrease percentage of heifers that graded USDA Choice. Results were not consistent with previous research, possibly because animals were not backgrounded with the treatment products prior to the stress period and did not experience a substantial pathogen challenge.