Cross-bred yearling steers were used in a feeding trial to compare the use of two different direct fed microbials (DFM), ProTernative CF (DFM-CF) and ProTernative SF (DFM-SF). The treatment design was a 2x2 factorial with a control (no DFM), DFM-CF, DFM-SF, and both (CF+SF). Diets consisted of 40% WCGF with high moisture corn with no feed additives other than the DFM treatments. No differences were observed in feedlot performance or carcass characteristics

Benton, Joshua R., Benton

Erickson, Galen E.

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Luebbe, Matt K.

Sindt, Justin

Vanness, Sarah J

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
2010 
Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative 
Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot Diet 
Sarah J. Vanness 
University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Matt K. Luebbe 
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, mluebbe2@unl.edu 
Joshua R. Benton Benton 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jbenton2@unl.edu 
Galen E. Erickson 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu 
Terry J. Klopfenstein 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu 
See next page for additional authors 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Vanness, Sarah J.; Luebbe, Matt K.; Benton, Joshua R. Benton; Erickson, Galen E.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; 
and Sindt, Justin, "Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative Continuous Fed Formula in 
a High Energy Feedlot Diet" (2010). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 593. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/593 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
Authors 
Sarah J. Vanness, Matt K. Luebbe, Joshua R. Benton Benton, Galen E. Erickson, Terry J. Klopfenstein, and 
Justin Sindt 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
animalscinbcr/593 
Page 96 — 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.
Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative 
Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot Diet
Sarah J. Vanness
Matt K. Luebbe
Josh R. Benton
Galen E. Erickson
Terry J. Klopfenstein
Justin Sindt1
Summary
Cross-bred yearling steers were used 
in a feeding trial to compare the use 
of two different direct fed microbials 
(DFM), ProTernative CF (DFM-CF) 
and ProTernative SF (DFM-SF). The 
treatment design was a 2x2 factorial 
with a control (no DFM), DFM-CF, 
DFM-SF, and both (CF+SF). Diets con-
sisted of 40% WCGF with high moisture 
corn with no feed additives other than 
the DFM treatments. No differences 
were observed in feedlot performance or 
carcass characteristics.
Introduction
The two direct fed microbials 
(DFM) under investigation from Ivy 
Natural Solutions were ProTernative 
Continuous Formula (Saccharomyces 
cerevisiae, strain I-1077) and ProTer-
native Stress Formula (Saccharomyces 
cerevisiae boulardii, strain I-1079). 
These DFMs have been evaluated for 
their respective performance and 
health effects but not in direct com-
parison to one another in typical high 
grain finishing diets with corn by-
products. The objective of the present 
trial was to evaluate live performance 
and carcass characteristics for steers 
receiving a feedlot finishing diet with 
corn milling byproducts with or with-
out each DFM. 
Procedure
Three hundred and twenty cross-
bred yearling steers (712 ± 16 lb) were 
used in a feeding trial at the Univer-
sity of Nebraska–Lincoln Research 
feedlot located at Mead, Neb. Steers 
were limit fed for 5 days at 2% BW. 
Individual BWs were collected for 
two consecutive days (day 0 and day 
1) with steers blocked by 3 weight 
groups (heavy, medium, and light). 
Treatments were randomly assigned 
to pens. Treatment replications were: 
one in the heavy block, three in the 
medium weight block, and four in the 
light block, for a total of 8 replications 
per treatment. Steers were housed in 
outdoor pens with ten steers per pen. 
On day 1, steers were implanted with 
Component TE-C (Vet Life). Steers 
were re-implanted on day 72 with 
TE-S (Vet Life). 
All steers were fed a common diet 
with the only difference between 
treatments being the DFM delivered. 
Treatments for this experiment were 
arranged as a 2x2 factorial design, 
with a control diet containing no 
DFM (CON). The other three treat-
ments were ProTernative Continuous 
Formula containing Saccharomyces 
cerevisiae, strain I-1077 (DFM-CF); 
ProTernative Stress Formula contain-
ing Saccharomyces cerevisiae bou-
lardii, strain I-1079 (DFM-SF); and a 
combination of both (CF+SF). Steers 
were adapted to the finishing diet 
with decreasing levels of alfalfa and 
increasing levels of HMC. Four adap-
tation diets were delivered for 3, 4, 7, 
and 7 days, respectively. The finishing 
diet for the steers consisted of 50% 
HMC, 40% WCGF (Sweet Bran, Car-
gill Inc., Blair, Neb.), 5% corn stalks, 
and 5% supplement. No Rumensin 
or Tylan was fed in any of the diets 
(Table 1). DFM treatments were added 
directly to the truck prior to feed 
delivery. Five pounds of DFM were 
mixed in the feed truck to delive r 2 oz 
of DFM to each steer daily, to ensure 
0, 400, 500, or 900 mg of active ingre-
dients were delivered for the CON, 
DFM-CF, DFM-SF, and CF+SF treat-
ments, respectively.
Steers were fed for 162 days, then 
slaughtered at a commercial abattoir 
(Greater Omaha Packing, Omaha, 
Neb.). At time of slaughter, hot carcass 
weights (HCW) and liver scores were 
collected. Livers were scored using 0 
(no abscesses), A-, A, and A+ (severely 
abscessed). Carcasses were then 
chilled for 48 hours, after which back 
fat thickness, LM area, and marbling 
scores were collected. Yield grade was 
calculated based on LM area, back 
fat thickness, marbling score, HCW, 
and 2.5% kidney, pelvic, and heart fat 
(KPH). 
Data for this experiment were ana-
lyzed using the PROC MIXED proce-
dure (SAS Inc.). Treatment and block 
were included as fixed effects. Treat-
ments were analyzed as a factorial. If 
the interaction between DFM-CF and 
DFM-SF was significant, the simple 
effects were analyzed. If no inter-
action was observed, only the main 
effects of either DFM-CF or DFM-SF 
are presented. Means were separated 
using least square means separation 
procedures of SAS. Chi-square analy-
sis was performed on the individual 
liver scores to determine treatment 
effects.
Results
No interactions were observed  
(P > 0.27) between the DFMs in this 
study for feedlot performance (Table 
2). Final BW and ADG were not 
impacted by treatment (P > 0.58). Dry 
matter intake was not influenced by 
DFM-CF (P = 0.95); however, steers 
fed DFM-SF tended (P = 0.09) to have 
greater DMI than CON or DFM-CF 
steers. However, no differences in  
G:F were observed due to treatment  
(P > 0.63). 
No interaction was observed 
between DFMs for carcass charac-
teristics (P > 0.27). Hot carcass weight 
was not impacted by treatment  
(P > 0.59), with an overall average of 
856 lb. Fat thickness averaged 0.53 in 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 97 
Table 1.  Adaptation and finishing diet composition.
Days 1-3 4-7 8-14 15-21 22-162
Diet 1 2 3 4 Finisher
WCGF 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
HMC 16.0 26.0 36.0 43.5 51.0
Corn stalks 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Alfalfa hay 35.0 25.0 15.0 7.5 0.0
Supplement 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
CP, % 17.2 16.6 16.0 15.6 15.2
WCGF = wet corn gluten feed (Sweet Bran® supplied by Cargill, Blair, NE); HMC = high moisture 
corn; CP = crude protein. Supplement contained no Rumensin® or Tylan®.
Table 2.  Feedlot and performance data of steers receiving different direct-fed microbial treatments.
 CON DFM-CF DFM-SF CF+SF SE Int. CF SF
Initial BW, lb 735 734 735 735 1 0.71 0.33 0.71
Final BW, lb 1395 1379 1388 1398 12 0.27 0.80 0.58
DMI, lb/d 26.3 26.0 26.4 26.7 0.2 0.29 0.95 0.09
ADG, lb 4.02 3.93 3.98 4.04 0.07 0.31 0.87 0.63
G:F 0.155 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.003 0.59 0.78 0.63
HCW, lb 879 869 875 881 7 0.27 0.80 0.58
Marbling2 506 512 520 539 11 0.54 0.28 0.07
LM area 13.3 13.2 13.2 13.2 0.2 0.85 0.78 0.82
Fat depth 0.55 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.02 0.75 0.48 0.34
YG calc.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 0.1 0.69 0.65 0.69
1None = 0 DFM; CF = ProTernative DFM CF; SF = ProTernative DFM SF; CF+SF = ProTernative DFM 
CF and SF.
2Marbling score: 400 = Slight0, 500 = Small0, etc.
3Yield grade (YG) calculated using the equation (2.5 + (2.5*fat thickness) + (0.2*2.5% KPH) + 
(0.0038*HCW lbs) – (0.32* LM area in2)).
and was not impacted by treatment 
(P > 0.40). No differences in LM area 
were observed (P > 0.79) with the 
overall average of 13.1 in2 (P > 0.79). 
There was a tendency for marbling 
score to be greater for steers receiv-
ing the DFM-SF (P = 0.07) treatment 
compared to DFM-CF. Liver scores 
were categorized and no differences 
for A+/adhered abscesses (P > 0.46), 
A abscesses (P > 0.28), or no abscesses 
(P > 0.11) were observed. There was, 
however, a tendency for CON steers 
to have more A- liver abscesses than 
steers in all other treatments  
(P = 0.06); 11 steers had A- liver scores 
compared with 7, 2, and 5, respec-
tively, for DFM-CF, DFM-SF, and 
CF+SF treatments. For finishing diets 
containing 40% WCGF, and low-
stress steers, no positive impacts were 
observed for using either DFM in this 
study. 
1Sarah J. Vanness, graduate student, Matt 
K Luebbe, research technician, Josh R. Benton, 
research technician, Galen E. Erickson, associate 
professor, Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor, 
Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 
Neb.; Justin Sindt, Elanco Animal Health.


Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot Diet

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 2010 Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot Diet Sarah J. Vanness University of Nebraska - Lincoln Matt K. Luebbe University of Nebraska - Lincoln, mluebbe2@unl.edu Joshua R. Benton Benton University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jbenton2@unl.edu Galen E. Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu Terry J. Klopfenstein University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Vanness, Sarah J.; Luebbe, Matt K.; Benton, Joshua R. Benton; Erickson, Galen E.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; and Sindt, Justin, "Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot Diet" (2010). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 593. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/593 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Sarah J. Vanness, Matt K. Luebbe, Joshua R. Benton Benton, Galen E. Erickson, Terry J. Klopfenstein, and Justin Sindt This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/593 Page 96 — 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot DietSarah J. VannessMatt K. LuebbeJosh R. BentonGalen E. EricksonTerry J. KlopfensteinJustin Sindt1SummaryCross-bred yearling steers were used in a feeding trial to compare the use of two different direct fed microbials (DFM), ProTernative CF (DFM-CF) and ProTernative SF (DFM-SF). The treatment design was a 2x2 factorial with a control (no DFM), DFM-CF, DFM-SF, and both (CF+SF). Diets con-sisted of 40% WCGF with high moisture corn with no feed additives other than the DFM treatments. No differences were observed in feedlot performance or carcass characteristics.IntroductionThe two direct fed microbials (DFM) under investigation from Ivy Natural Solutions were ProTernative Continuous Formula (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, strain I-1077) and ProTer-native Stress Formula (Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii, strain I-1079). These DFMs have been evaluated for their respective performance and health effects but not in direct com-parison to one another in typical high grain finishing diets with corn by-products. The objective of the present trial was to evaluate live performance and carcass characteristics for steers receiving a feedlot finishing diet with corn milling byproducts with or with-out each DFM. ProcedureThree hundred and twenty cross-bred yearling steers (712 ± 16 lb) were used in a feeding trial at the Univer-sity of Nebraska–Lincoln Research feedlot located at Mead, Neb. Steers were limit fed for 5 days at 2% BW. Individual BWs were collected for two consecutive days (day 0 and day 1) with steers blocked by 3 weight groups (heavy, medium, and light). Treatments were randomly assigned to pens. Treatment replications were: one in the heavy block, three in the medium weight block, and four in the light block, for a total of 8 replications per treatment. Steers were housed in outdoor pens with ten steers per pen. On day 1, steers were implanted with Component TE-C (Vet Life). Steers were re-implanted on day 72 with TE-S (Vet Life). All steers were fed a common diet with the only difference between treatments being the DFM delivered. Treatments for this experiment were arranged as a 2x2 factorial design, with a control diet containing no DFM (CON). The other three treat-ments were ProTernative Continuous Formula containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae, strain I-1077 (DFM-CF); ProTernative Stress Formula contain-ing Saccharomyces cerevisiae bou-lardii, strain I-1079 (DFM-SF); and a combination of both (CF+SF). Steers were adapted to the finishing diet with decreasing levels of alfalfa and increasing levels of HMC. Four adap-tation diets were delivered for 3, 4, 7, and 7 days, respectively. The finishing diet for the steers consisted of 50% HMC, 40% WCGF (Sweet Bran, Car-gill Inc., Blair, Neb.), 5% corn stalks, and 5% supplement. No Rumensin or Tylan was fed in any of the diets (Table 1). DFM treatments were added directly to the truck prior to feed delivery. Five pounds of DFM were mixed in the feed truck to delive r 2 oz of DFM to each steer daily, to ensure 0, 400, 500, or 900 mg of active ingre-dients were delivered for the CON, DFM-CF, DFM-SF, and CF+SF treat-ments, respectively.Steers were fed for 162 days, then slaughtered at a commercial abattoir (Greater Omaha Packing, Omaha, Neb.). At time of slaughter, hot carcass weights (HCW) and liver scores were collected. Livers were scored using 0 (no abscesses), A-, A, and A+ (severely abscessed). Carcasses were then chilled for 48 hours, after which back fat thickness, LM area, and marbling scores were collected. Yield grade was calculated based on LM area, back fat thickness, marbling score, HCW, and 2.5% kidney, pelvic, and heart fat (KPH). Data for this experiment were ana-lyzed using the PROC MIXED proce-dure (SAS Inc.). Treatment and block were included as fixed effects. Treat-ments were analyzed as a factorial. If the interaction between DFM-CF and DFM-SF was significant, the simple effects were analyzed. If no inter-action was observed, only the main effects of either DFM-CF or DFM-SF are presented. Means were separated using least square means separation procedures of SAS. Chi-square analy-sis was performed on the individual liver scores to determine treatment effects.ResultsNo interactions were observed  (P > 0.27) between the DFMs in this study for feedlot performance (Table 2). Final BW and ADG were not impacted by treatment (P > 0.58). Dry matter intake was not influenced by DFM-CF (P = 0.95); however, steers fed DFM-SF tended (P = 0.09) to have greater DMI than CON or DFM-CF steers. However, no differences in  G:F were observed due to treatment  (P > 0.63). No interaction was observed between DFMs for carcass charac-teristics (P > 0.27). Hot carcass weight was not impacted by treatment  (P > 0.59), with an overall average of 856 lb. Fat thickness averaged 0.53 in © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 97 Table 1.  Adaptation and finishing diet composition.Days 1-3 4-7 8-14 15-21 22-162Diet 1 2 3 4 FinisherWCGF 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0HMC 16.0 26.0 36.0 43.5 51.0Corn stalks 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Alfalfa hay 35.0 25.0 15.0 7.5 0.0Supplement 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0CP, % 17.2 16.6 16.0 15.6 15.2WCGF = wet corn gluten feed (Sweet Bran® supplied by Cargill, Blair, NE); HMC = high moisture corn; CP = crude protein. Supplement contained no Rumensin® or Tylan®.Table 2.  Feedlot and performance data of steers receiving different direct-fed microbial treatments. CON DFM-CF DFM-SF CF+SF SE Int. CF SFInitial BW, lb 735 734 735 735 1 0.71 0.33 0.71Final BW, lb 1395 1379 1388 1398 12 0.27 0.80 0.58DMI, lb/d 26.3 26.0 26.4 26.7 0.2 0.29 0.95 0.09ADG, lb 4.02 3.93 3.98 4.04 0.07 0.31 0.87 0.63G:F 0.155 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.003 0.59 0.78 0.63HCW, lb 879 869 875 881 7 0.27 0.80 0.58Marbling2 506 512 520 539 11 0.54 0.28 0.07LM area 13.3 13.2 13.2 13.2 0.2 0.85 0.78 0.82Fat depth 0.55 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.02 0.75 0.48 0.34YG calc.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 0.1 0.69 0.65 0.691None = 0 DFM; CF = ProTernative DFM CF; SF = ProTernative DFM SF; CF+SF = ProTernative DFM CF and SF.2Marbling score: 400 = Slight0, 500 = Small0, etc.3Yield grade (YG) calculated using the equation (2.5 + (2.5*fat thickness) + (0.2*2.5% KPH) + (0.0038*HCW lbs) – (0.32* LM area in2)).and was not impacted by treatment (P > 0.40). No differences in LM area were observed (P > 0.79) with the overall average of 13.1 in2 (P > 0.79). There was a tendency for marbling score to be greater for steers receiv-ing the DFM-SF (P = 0.07) treatment compared to DFM-CF. Liver scores were categorized and no differences for A+/adhered abscesses (P > 0.46), A abscesses (P > 0.28), or no abscesses (P > 0.11) were observed. There was, however, a tendency for CON steers to have more A- liver abscesses than steers in all other treatments  (P = 0.06); 11 steers had A- liver scores compared with 7, 2, and 5, respec-tively, for DFM-CF, DFM-SF, and CF+SF treatments. For finishing diets containing 40% WCGF, and low-stress steers, no positive impacts were observed for using either DFM in this study. 1Sarah J. Vanness, graduate student, Matt K Luebbe, research technician, Josh R. Benton, research technician, Galen E. Erickson, associate professor, Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.; Justin Sindt, Elanco Animal Health.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1591&context=animalscinbcr

Evaluation of ProTernative Stress Formula and ProTernative Continuous Fed Formula in a High Energy Feedlot Diet

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska