Published November 1966. Facts and recommendations in this publication may no longer be valid. Please look for up-to-date information in the OSU Extension Catalog: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalo

Kennick, W. H. (Walter Herbert), 1920-

Oregon State University. Agricultural Experiment Station

Ralston, A. T. (Allen Thurman), 1915-

Taylor, Norton O.

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

The Effect of Choline Chloride, Urea and RoughageFed at Varying Levels Upon Feedlot PerformanceAnd Carcass Characteristics of Steers.0314 15 fp r)!1"rtS')	DEC /966	 9'')LIBRARY :t-n.4 OREGON STATEU	2NivERSITy ,6/A41.76.0 se ea 0,0.iSPECIAL REPORT 228NOVEMBER 1966Agricultural Experiment StationOregon State UniversityCorvallisAUTHORS: A. T. Ralston is Professor of Animal Science, N. O. Taylor isUmatilla County Extension Agent and W. H. Kennick is Assistant Professorof Animal Science, Oregon State University.THE EFFECT OF CHOLINE CHLORIDE, UREA AND ROUGHAGE FED AT VARYINGLEVELS UPON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF STEERSA. T. Ralston, W. H. Kennick and N. 0. TaylorCholine has two known biological functions. It is a lipotropic(fat transporting) agent and serves as a methyl donor for the synthesisof many physiologically important compounds. Choline is required inthe diet of the immature ruminant and monogastric animals. The needsof the mature or ruminating ruminant may or may not be met eitherthrough adequate levels of choline in their diet or by microbialsynthesis. Because of the varying diets and the variations existingamong component parts of their diets, the response of beef cattle tocholine has been quite varied. If choline actually functions as amethyl donor in ruminants, it should be most effective when non-proteinnitrogen makes up a portion of the diet.The following experiment was conducted to (1) determine the effectof choline chloride upon non-protein nitrogen x roughage interrelation-ships; (2) compare the finishing performance of beef cattle on twolevels of choline (0 and 400 mg. per pound of concentrate), two levelsof roughage (10% and 20%), and three levels of urea (0, .5 and 1.0%);and (3) determine the effect of the three variables (choline, level ofroughage and level of urea) upon carcass characteristics.Methods The feeder steers used in this trial had previously been on awintering trial gaining at the rate of about 1.5 pounds per day.When the steers reached an average weight of about 700 pounds, theywere stratified as to previous treatment and weight and randomlyallotted to treatments. One roughage treatment was started two monthslater than the other so that starting weights would be comparable.The experimental design was a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial consisting of10%. or 20% roughage, 0 or 400 mg. of choline per pound of concentrateand 0, .5 or 1.0% urea. The concentrate consisted of 15% beet pulp,5% molasses, 39.5% steam rolled wheat, 39.5% steam rolled barley,.5% trace mineralized salt, 5% limestone and 50,000 InternationalUnits of Vitamin A. The urea and the choline chloride replaced equalamounts of the steam rolled barley and wheat by weight.The hay was coarsely chopped and fed separately and should havemade up 10 and 20% of the total ration. However, due to rather largeamounts of hay being fed during the adjustment period, the exactamounts of 10 and 20% of the total ration were never realized (Table 1).+a1/1	 •r-4N Ch PI N in 0011V) N•	 •MD ri•	 •ts rA•	 •00•r4•et N•	 •V) CA•	 •r4 0 I 0001 1 0001 I 00 01 I Ps VI I 0001 I CON0 .1.4 I e4 I r4 I .4 I r4 I	 ri I -I+.)0 0E. CL.Ul 00 PI 00 Ch Ch0"11.4vS	 •VD et NI ,O NN CV•	 •	 •4D r, C4•	 •	 •Ch V) CD•	 •	 •Ul VD .4•	 •	 •Ps Ps CD•	 •	 •et et rn Mr Mr VI et et 01 et et NI It et 01 et et NICGE0 .0.N C4 N N N C4 C4 04 P4 C4 N C4(1).14cd4-)•	 111X >,0 01.400C4 C4 00•	 •	 •4)C4 C4 UI•	 •	 •PIri C4 et•	 •	 •VDCs 1.4 Ln•	 •	 •tnCs Ps Ch•	 •	 •NLf1 t4)  00•	 •	 •et CD N et CD N et CD C4 Mr CD N et	 C4 Mt CD 04fa.	 I. Csl C4 C4 C4 P4 C4 P4 C4 N r4 CV CV(L)r4 4-4 r•41O I)r, oo 1.4•	 •	 •VD ts blN 0i K•	 •	 •VD Cs VIU) cn Mr•	 •	 •VD Cs 01\0 0 NCsMD 01VD Cs VI•	 •	 •VD Cs 0100 00 01•	 •	 •rn00 N C4 r4 P4 r4 C4 r4 C4 ,s4	 • ry4-) N$4C) VD VD r4 in Vl '0a.rc)•tr 0•	 •	 • 0) MO 01.	 •	 • 000 1..4•	 •	 • t•i)	 n0.	 •	 •00 MN •	 •	 • Oet u•	 •	 •\0 0001 VI q) CO C4 V) O M yD Ps C4 VD 00 C4 Vs 00 C400 N r4 N r4 N C4 N 04 Csi -I CV 1.4E N•*-1.A4	 0to00 r4 00 0 0)0 LI+A '011NI r4 et•	 •	 •Ul et et•	 •	 •CV et ri•	 •	 •vD et co•	 .	 •NON r- N,	 Ln•	 •	 •g00r-CV e4U1 er 01N r44, ts NIP4 r4co Ln 01CV r4to Cs rnCV rAvD r- 01C4 p-.1•r4 N	et	 N	 N	 V)	CD CD Ln	 r- 00 VD	 CD cp in	 L41 C4	 .4 01 Mr	 C4 CD Ul• •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	et rA NI	 \0 00N) I	 r4 VI	 in r4 VI	 ri VI	 mr r4 VI	P4 C4	 N e4	 C4 C4	 C4 C4	 N P4	 C4 t4	0)	 CD	 Ul	 CD	 PI	 00	CD .4 CA	 C4 Ch r4	 et 000	 Cl 01 Cs 	 01 CV Cs	 141 C4 V)• •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	C4 el	 ri P4 VI	 r4 CV CV	 01 01 C4	 ri mr C4	 r4 PI r4	C4 Ul	 N to	 C4 Ul	 N U)	 Net	 N incd	 c:4	 (.7	 c:4 (.1	 C4 CD4,0 	CD OP	 Ee l g	 E ,„„	 gcNo	 o\oLI)	 CD	 LI)	 ri•	to	 bO	 bo	0	 0	 0	0	 0	 0	O	 0	 0	•41'	 .4,	 .4-O D.°0 A$10 •• 00••..O 0boO	0cc0N  recoNi-1O A4.)cticd0 001-4 0•r40boC)•=C•r40$.1124C)5tC 00N  • IA>,O1•.tr4:c'L300CNIIn00C4InO1100tNNcti00(N1el	 NI4) C4 4) I, M OO oo• •	 •pn rn VI	 CD V) eqC4 ,4	 CA r4CI	 LI	 0V)	 r4 cn IA .0 co 0.	 .	 .	 •	 •	 •..-o I V)	 4 (41 et	 •ct LI) etC4 I	 fr4 r-4	 C4 rlet	 rnrn 1-4 r,	 CA ,4 CD• •	 •et C4 C4	 et C4 (1)CNI r1	 ("4 r-1PIC) 4)	 U) r4 V)	 et VI LA• •	 •	 •	 •	 •ct C4 C4 Id' NN	 Ul C4 C4C4 0.4 	C4 r4	 C4 el4.)•>•CC el 00 Ce) 00 V) Chcn 0 et el ,4 N rl CD 0 0 0 0• •	 • • • •	 • • • • •I•MM 1 er rn I et C4 I .Tr NI I V) NI I Ul VI0j •rl I	 1-4 I r4 I el I 1,4 I ,4 I el4-)	 f•4O a)1-• a.C N oo VD V) -•••• O.-Iof M OO CD Ul 0M C4 OOet et N et Itt	 • •	 •	 • •	 •	 • •	 .	 . •	 •	 • •	 •	 • •	 •	 •4-)	 > et CD Nr) It el rn et rl M et rl M et CD NI Ln rug V)O 4:4 C4 C4 C4 C4 el el CV el eg C4 C4 C4	n13	 Li)	 CD	 CD	C4 VD C4 r4 00 C4 NN	 V, C4 V) CD N00	 r,• •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 .	 •	 •	 •	C, C4 NI	 C4 NI t, el NI	 Ch C4 VI 00 NM 00 C4 mrN ,4	 el ,4	 CV el	 C4 r4	 C4 el	 04 r4	CD	 CD	 N	 et	 V)	 C4r, c) r4 M 00 4-4 er et N 00 N NI 00 C4 M 00 00 • •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •OM NI 01 Ch VI NI CD C4 NI Ch co rn cn M et O N	CA C4	 C4 r4	 C4 C4	 Cl ,4	 N r-I	 el esig ess°cd C4oV)r c4EdpQc4ch°0 0 Ln 1,4 el1.1 •Ocl)	 • . . . . .g 04 b4 04 WI 'Da 04.ri	 a••-4E 0 0 0 0o o o C) CD CD4UCDetCDetCDet0rar4	 4)000N r, rn CD el• •	 •	 •	 •	 •l MM r4 VI Vet	 NetOD .•i••csi,4	 C)	 NIC, C4 C,	 00 C4 00	 C4 Ch 00• •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •r4 NI NI	 r-IMM	 pn tin IIICNI	 •I•	 (V •er4The steers were marketed at either a choice live grade or 1100pounds weight. Complete carcass data were collected (carcass weight,conformation score, marbling score, ribeye area, backfat and grade)and the yield of closely trimmed boneless retail cuts from the round,loin, rib and chuck was estimated.Results and Discussion The use of choline alone or in combination with urea did notmaterially affect gains of steers on finishing rations. Although thedifferences among treatments were non-significant, the results of thistrial tend to further confuse the literature as to the importance ofcholine to the ruminating animal.Earlier work at this station indicated that perhaps cholinesupplementation was more effective in a low energy ration. Theresults of this trial are contradictory since the lower energy rationsactually show a slight decrease in gains from choline supplementationwhereas an equal increase in gains resulted when higher energy dietswere supplemented with choline (Table 2). The statistical analysis ofvariations in average daily gain indicate that energy level (orroughage level) and level of urea were greater contributors to thisvariation than choline or choline x urea interaction.There were no differences in feed efficiency due to cholinesupplementation.The use of urea at the 0.5 percent level resulted in smallincreases in gains and corresponding feed efficiency improvements.The 1.0 percent level tended to retard gains somewhat but did notgreatly change feed efficiency.If the ruminating steer is actually below the choline requirementon normal rations, one might expect greater gains on rations containingnon-protein nitrogen supplemented with choline. The incorporation ofnitrogen with small carbon fragments to form amino acids and B complexvitamins by bacteria could certainly make use of methyl groups donatedby choline. The results reported herein would indicate that sincecholine failed to produce an added response, perhaps available methylgroups were not limiting for such synthesis.rA•4cd4.10•4.1>,r400t.f)04.)NO	 •1411	4-) 0• tnCd 0	 cd •C.) .14tn	 t)O et 0II	 .04.4II 0 -0eNoyJ r4-0 .04-) 140 at	 9-1N 0 e •bl) .14 0 011	 4.) A4 r4II	 V) 0 -0)9.4Cd -0• 0 ofE U bO 4-4 1.4 >,tH 0 0 r-t$-I• cn d cd0>O 0O .3C/) tu)	 4.)• cd 4c+4 .1-1	 0t30O >, •r4 •r4i-1 •U.c>3ctSr-4CO 4-)to	 .1-1(30A4 A4• g 0C4	 1-40cAdLI)1-11-1	 1-11-4 tr4et	 C.4 000)001a0 •• 0 0ri r-4 p•iCh Ln '.0O 00 vl 4DCD CD CD CDr4 p4 r4 p4Ul um et 00r, 00 t,CD CD CD CDr4 r4 r4 r400 00 0.400 Ch 00CD CD CDr( r4 r4rm 0 et 00 et vl et CDCn 00	 h. 00 00 004) 4D 4D 4, 4) 40 4) 4)eg 4) 00 Ch00 t,4D 4) 4, VD00 et ,-I Tr00 00 00 004, VD 4) V)eg CV et00 co 00VD 4) 4DEn 00 vl umeg eg eg eg• •	 •	 •VI V) V) U)00 O 0) Cs)	CD	 CD PA• •	 •	 •	NI 	 NI V)	C4 h. 00 Ch	 4) VD	 ,4v) et CD eg Met et• •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •VI V) V) VI M tnMrnUI UI CDC4 (.1 C4VI V) V)etvri 0-	 0cn	 •r4••	 4.)	 v4O 0	 011	 c..)	 .0C	 U$4 '004 0	 U$4• 	 ..00	 .1-4	 C.)Cl) $4	 4O E-4	C)•0Cd1-1	 cdcd 0 00	 $.414 4\0 0144 0140 el0\00 r4 r4+ + +4.0 c).S. at*CD C4	 •4ri0 (NIs-... ccf,0 r4 r44 4 4.0 .0 .0b.0S•4+ + + 00 •	 •	 •	 0 >-0 4 4 bd b0 b0 b0 t30 cd0 0 0 cd44 4 .0 /OeScd000 0cd4)cd0 0 U>>000 •ct0 O	 >nt n4I-45Ocd4.443 x LI) IA to Li)•	 •	 •	 •LA 0 0 0•	 •	 •	 •et ifs•	 •	 •	 •um•	 •	 •	 •if) 11) Ll)•	 •	 •0004.)0•et111 C4 4D et•	 •	 •	 •U) VI 00 LI)•	 •	 •	 •CD CA eg CD•	 •	 •	 •CD r4 1,4 r-4•	 •	 •	 •eg	 et•	 •	 •ctl .0 4D VD VD 4) 4D 4, 41) 40 UM 4D 4) 4) 4D 4) 4D 4) 4) 4Dr4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 -4 r4 _4 r4 r• rA r4 r4 r4 r4 r41-4 O b.000bAC.)	 03cd 0 014	 130cd 00..000 et q)•	 •	 •	 •r4 r4 CD•	 •	 •	 •00 cD O 4)•	 •	 •	 •um t, 00 r,•	 •	 •	 •vl 00 4).0 0 14 0 vm +1 vl vl et to En et NN VI C4 04 C4 C4 C4 VI C4 VICG cd	 C.) •4 r4	 r4 r4 r4	 r4 r4 P4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4Nctnd ia$.4	 cd4-)	 gX •r4cd 0C.)cd CD t- et CDet rn et 1.En un on toCD 4D CD eVet rn 4)to	 un ulUl Ch 00 r4eg cm 4) V)En et on onO'.DetU4) CD bn tnEn En on EnON etet elin En tin4-1C CI0	 •, E-•	 000 0 tf ) 00• •	 •Ch 0 CM Chet cn et etCD Ch um 00• •	 •	 •0) Ch Chet et etvl ,4 r4 14)	 et tn En et	 0) VD et• •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •CD CM Ch Ch	 CA Ch Ch Ch	 Ch Ch CAu) et et et	 et et et et	 et et etCd01-1 ascd 0 00	 IAt.,4 43Cd	 0 (-4(1)	 '.... efa4as f., as	 CD r4 r0 0 CD14	 1-4	 + 4. +0 at° 0O C4	 4 4 41345	 0 •••-.. OP	 C.) LS Ucd	 r-4 .-1	 .4 .0 .gWI	 + +O "0	 0	 • • • 0O 4 .0 4 b1)	 130 b0 b0 t34c4 0 U 0 0 0 E 0 cd4 4 4 S-1	 /-10eta 	c.)t)00 0 0 0> C) CD CD >N	 CD CD CD ,,e4	 et et et etcd$.4 0cd 0 a)14It was interesting that the greatest increase due to cholineoccurred with 1.0% of urea added on the lower roughage treatment.However, by increasing the roughage only slightly the results werereversed and to nearly the same magnitude.The carcass characteristics measured were not affected by eithercholine or urea supplementation.Summary One hundred forty-four yearling steers were used in a 2 x 2 x 3factorially designed experiment. The treatments consisted of 0 or400 mg. of choline per pound of concentrate, 14.6 or 18.4% roughageand 0, 0.5 or 1.0% urea. There were no significant differences dueto treatments. The greatest contribution to the variations noted weredue to level of roughage followed by level of urea, level of cholinechloride and very little due to urea-choline interaction. The carcasscharacteristics measured were very comparable for all treatments.

The effect of choline chloride, urea and roughage fed at varying levels upon feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of steers

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/7h149t62f

The effect of choline chloride, urea and roughage fed at varying levels upon feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of steers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU