PS13-23. Effect of Monensin and Narasin on Performance of Finishing Beef Cattle.

Clicks: 11
ID: 330318
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #707 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to evaluate the effects of monensin (Rumensin; Elanco Animal Health, São Paulo, Brazil) and narasin (Zimprova; Elanco Animal Health) on performance of feedlot-finished Nellore cattle. A total of 156 animals were ranked by initial body weight (BW = 336 ± 8 kg) and randomly assigned to 52 pens (3 animals/pen), which served as the experimental units and were allocated to 1 of 4 dietary treatments: 1) a total mixed ration with no feed additives administered throughout the 100-d experimental period (CON; n = 13), 2) CON + monensin at 28 mg/kg dry matter (DM) from d 1 to 100 (MON; n = 13), 3) CON + narasin at 13 mg/kg DM from d 1 to 97 d (NAR; n = 13), or 4) CON with sequential monensin (28 mg/kg DM; d 1–49) followed by narasin (13 mg/kg DM; d 50–97) supplementation (MNS; n = 13). During the first phase (d 0–49), DMI was greater for NAR (9.9 kg/d) vs. MON (9.2 kg/d; P = 0.01), whereas CON (9.5 kg/d) and MNS (9.2 kg/d) did not differ from either treatment (P > 0.05). During phase 2 (d 50–100), DMI differed among treatments (P = 0.03), being greater for NAR (11.4 kg/d) than MON (10.5 kg/d), while CON (10.9 kg/d) and MNS (11.2 kg/d) were intermediate (P > 0.05). Across the entire period (d 0–100), DMI was greater for NAR (10.7 kg/d) than MON (9.8 kg/d; P = 0.01), with CON (10.2 kg/d) and MNS (10.2 kg/d) remaining intermediate (P > 0.05).During phase 1 (d 0–49), ADG differed among treatments (P < 0.01), with greater gain for NAR (2.070 kg/d) vs. CON (1.85 kg/d), MON (1.91 kg/d), and MNS (1.91 kg/d), which did not differ (P > 0.05). No treatment effects were detected for ADG during the second phase (d 50–100; P = 0.13) or across the overall experimental period (d 0–100; P = 0.11). An effect of treatment was observed for intermediate BW on d 50 (P < 0.01), with greater BW for NAR (439.0 kg) vs. CON (428.4 kg), MON (431.1 kg), and MNS (431.2 kg), whereas CON, MON, and MNS did not differ from one another (P > 0.05). No treatment effects (P = 0.11) were detected for final BW among treatments (514.1, 516.9, 524.3, and 522.3 kg for CON, MON, NAR, and MNS, respectively). In conclusion, narasin supplementation increased DMI and early growth performance, resulting in greater BW at mid-trial; however, monensin supplementation, alone or followed by narasin, improved feed efficiency without compromising overall ADG. These results indicate that ionophore source and supplementation strategy differentially influence intake, growth, and efficiency responses, highlighting opportunities to optimize feedlot performance through targeted additive use.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214734938 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Matheus Rodrigues de Souza, Rodrigo S Marques, Mateus José Inácio de Abreu, Isadora Alves Dornellas, José Paulo Roman Barroso, Adriano Vinicius Paiva, Murilo Chuba Rodrigues, Iorrano Andrade Cidrini, Flávio Dutra Dutra de de Resende, Gustavo Rezende Siqueira
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.598
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag272.598
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.