1. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Effects of nutritional technologies on cattle digestibility
Sara Tondini
Advisors: Dr. Shike / Dr. Felix
Mentor: Wesley Chapple
Stakeholders: Mike Tenhouse, Dr. Steve Cerney, Tom Saxe, Terry Mefford
July 31st 2015
Abstract:
When calculated on a financial cost basis, 63 percent of total annual cow cost is feed cost
(Miller et. al., 2001). Feed is the number one cost to producers, and corn stalks tend to be
the cheapest feedavailable during months of forage dormancy. The downside with poor
quality forage is that it can create problems like scours, mycotoxins, and poor digestibility.
The purpose of this trial is to determine if various feed technologies found in the
commercial supplement “Cornstalk Maximizer” will improve digestibility. Ninety-six
lactating Sim-Angus cows were allotted into two treatments at time of calving. Treatment A
had nutritional technologies (Fibrozyme, Bio-Mos, Integral A+, Algae, Sel-Plex, Bioplex
trace minerals) and treatment B had inorganic minerals and no other technologies. Both
groups were fed the same diet of corn stalks 11.5lb, corn silage 9.5lb, DDGS 6.5lb and .67lb
of designated supplement. A single fecal sample was collected from each cow around 70
days post-partum, and feed samples of each individual ingredient and the total mixed
ration were taken five consecutive days prior. Theses samples were dried, ground, and
composited by pen. Acid Insoluble Ash analysis was performed on composites to calculate
the AIA percentage and dry matter digestibility. During this procedure, all organic matter
was heated out of the samples so that ash was the only thing that remained. The samples
were then given an acid bath to breakdown the inorganic minerals. A second ashing was
conducted so that all that was left was silica. This weight was used in a calculation to find
the DM digestibility. There was a 7 percent increase in digestibility for the treatment
supplemented with nutritional technologies, as opposed to the treatment with no
technologies (P<0.0001). Treatment A has 69.9 percent average digestibility and treatment
B had 63.0 percent average digestibility. The nutritional technologies did improve the
digestibility of the poor quality forage. Return on investment will vary for each producer.
In some instances, it might be cheaper to purchase stalks and use nutritional technologies
than to buy expensive high quality feedstuffs plus mineral and get the same digestibility.
Location:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Animal Sciences
Orr Beef Research Center (Baylis, IL)
Objective:
To determine the effects of the nutritional technology “Cornstalk Maximizer” in cows fed a corn
stalk-based diet on total tract digestibility.

2. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Introduction:
Over fifty percent of the herd-to-herd variation in profit is attributed to feed costs (Miller,
et. al.). During months of forage dormancy when cattle are not able to graze, producers must
purchase feed, so it is critical to find ways to keep feed costs down. Months of forage dormancy
are longer for parts of the state with harsher winters. During these months, there is a limited
availability of higher quality feedstuffs like hay, but an abundance of stalks, especially in
Illinois, at a low cost. The downside to this poor quality feed is an increase in problems such as
scours, mycotoxins, and poor digestibility in lactating cows. Studies have shown that trace
minerals can have positive effects on cow health and performance. The purpose of this trial is to
determine the effectiveness of various feed technologies that have the potential for improving
digestibility of low-quality forage.
A study conducted by researchers at Oklahoma State University examined the effects the
nutritional technology Fibrozyme had on beef cows. Fibrozyme is a fiber enzyme that helps aid
in the digestion of fiber. This study showed a 3.19 percent increase in weight per day by steers
receiving this technology over steers that did not receive Fibrozyme (Cranston et al., 2005). The
research conducted by Cranston et al. shows that this nutritional technology can positively affect
digestibility.
Algae is another technology provided in this supplement. A study by T. Pajatian shows
that Spirulina (algae) can increase microbial crude protein production. Microbes in the rumen
help cattle digest forages (Pajatian, 2015). These healthy bacteria are why ruminants can eat
forages that hind-gut fermenters cannot. This study also shows that the increase in microbial
crude protein also increases intake and digestibility and decreases the amount of time it takes the
rumen to digest. The algae in the Cornstalk Maximizer should display similar results, and if it
does, the digestibility of the low-quality forage should improve.
Mannan Oligosaccharides (MOS) is a protein complex derived from the cells walls of a
yeast strain, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. (Tassinari, 2007). Bio-Mos is the commercial source of
MOS. It blocks pathogens from adhering to the gut lining, therefore enhancing the integrity of
the gut. E. coli and Salmonella only have one binding site, so Bio-Mos attaches to that binding
site and can then be then excreted without harming the animal. It also modifies microflora
fermentation to favor nutrient availability. A study conducted by Tassinari found that there was a
greater average daily weight gain (+ 3.6%) for calves that were fed MOS compared with those
that did not receive that supplement (Tassinari, 2007).
Intergral A+ is a gluccomanan-containing yeast product. It is a hydrolyzed dried yeast
supplement and anticaking agent. It is derived from a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, similar
to Bio-Mos. It binds to mycotoxins, which stem from mold. Mold growth is associated with
extreme weather conditions and poor storage practices (CAST, 2003). Corn stalks are not
harvested at the most opportune time in terms of weather conditions, so mold can be problematic
for the poor quality forage. The most effective way to reduce mycotoxins in contaminated diets
is with the addition of mycotoxin binders, like Integral A+ (Galvano et al., 2001). Mycotoxin
binders decontaminate mycotoxins by latching on to them in order to prevent them to interact
with animal’s digestive tract. It is estimated worldwide, that each year about 25% of crops are
affected with mycotoxins (Jelinek et al., 1989).

3. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Sel-Plex is the commercial form of selenium yeast. Bioavailability of selenium yeast has
been found to be higher than that of inorganic Selenium sources. Supplementation of selenium
yeast in the form of Sel-Plex improved rumen fermentation and feed digestion. It was suggested
that the selenium yeast stimulated the digestive microorganisms that help the stomach
breakdown forages (Wang, 2009).
Bioplex trace minerals differ from inorganic trace minerals because they are chelated.
Chelation refers to the bond between a mineral and a ligand carrier. Chelates increase the
bioavailability of minerals because they are stable, electrically neutral complexes that protect the
minerals during digestion. Inorganic minerals are electrically charged, and they must react with a
naturally occurring ligand in the stomach of the animals in order for the mineral to be absorbed.
If this reaction does not occur or the formation results in an unavailable mineral substance then
the animal cannot absorb the mineral. Adding minerals that are chelated increases bioavailability
and uptake (Center for Food and Nutritional Policy, 2002).
This study differs from others in that it will look at the effects that all of these
technologies, given at the same time, might have on a low-quality diet. The supplement was
provided by U.S. Feeds and is a combination pellet of all six technologies described above.
Finding the effects these nutritional technologies may have on digestibility will be valuable
information for cattlemen in the Upper Midwest during months of forage dormancy.
Hypothesis:
Digestibility of diet containing poor quality forage will improve when supplemented with the
nutritional technologies Bio-Mos, Integral A+, Fibrozyme, Algae, Sel-Plex and Bioplex trace
minerals.
Materials and Methods:
Animals
Ninety-six Simmental-Angus cows were administered the following; Endovac Beef-Immune
Plus- 2cc IM, Scourguard 4KC- 2cc IM, Ultrabac 7- 5cc SQ, Vitamin AD- 4cc SQ, poured with
Eprinex- 1mL/22lb of BW, and fed a common diet formulated to meet maintenance requirements
for crude protein and energy according to NRC values.
Experimental Design
Cattle were randomly allotted to 1 of 2 treatments: A (nutritional technologies, described below)
or B (basic supplement with inorganic minerals and no other technologies). Cattle were housed
in twelve pens and each pen held eight head of cattle. The odd numbered pens were fed
treatment B and the even numbered pens were given treatment A. The supplements were fed at
0.75lb/head/day on an as-is basis. The diets were formulated to meet or exceed the Nutritional
Cattle Requirement values: 9.5lb of corn silage, 11.5lb corn stalks, 6.5lb dried distillers grain,
and 0.67lb of designated supplement. Cows were randomly allotted to treatment at the time of
calving, which started on February 12th. Cows remained on treatments until time of breeding and
turned out to pasture (May 21st).

4. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Feeds and Feeding Procedure Table 1 (Guaranteed Analysis for supp. A and B)
The technologies used in treatment A will supplement the
diet to improve digestibility. Supplement A and B have the
same Guaranteed Analysis to avoid confounding results.
The concentrations of calcium, selenium, zinc etc. are all
the same for both supplements but the source is different.
The selenium in treatment A will come from the Sel-Plex
but the selenium in treatment B will come from the
inorganic mineral. If treatment A improves digestibility, it
will be because of the technologies and not that more
protein or fat was put into the diet.
The diet on a dry matter basis adds up to 28lbs (9.5lb of
corn silage, 11.5lb corn stalks, 6.5lb DDGS, and 0.67lb of
supplement. This is less than the Nutrient Requirement for
Cattle value states cattle at this stage should be fed (34lb),
so the cattle were limit fed on this trial. The requirement for
protein, fat, energy etc. was met or exceeded with the diet
formulated at 28lbs. This was done to ensure that the cattle
ate all of the feed and supplement that was given to them since
it is a poor quality forage and not very palatable. The NRC values
in the table below show the kind of nutrient levels the cattle
received with this type of diet. It gives the crude protein, neutral detergent
fiber, acid detergent fiber, total digestible nutrients, and the net energy for
maintenance for stalks, silage, and dried distillers grain.
Table 2 (NRC values for cattle diet)

5. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Technologies
 Bio-Mos - derivative of yeast that binds to E. coli and salmonella. These bacteria only
have one binding site. Once Bio-Mos attaches to them they can safely pass through the
digestive system without harming cattle. According to Thayne’s study on Bio-Mos about
lamb growth, this technology also promotes healthy gut development that enhances
nutrient absorption (Thayne, 2007).
 Integral A+ - derivative of yeast that binds to mycotoxins and works similarly to Bio-
Mos, in that it attaches to the only binding site of mycotoxins. Mycotoxins stem from
mold and since low quality forage, like corn stalks, is not often harvested during optimal
conditions (wet, rainy), as hay would be (dry), it is important to have protection against
this strain of bacteria.
 Fibrozyme - a fiber enzyme that helps aid in digestibility of fibrous feedstuffs
 Algae - source of Docosahexaenoic Acid (omega-3 fatty acid) increases healthy bacteria
in the rumen (Pajatian, 2015).
 Sel-Plex – organic selenium yeast improves fermentation and feed digestion and the
bioavailability of selenium yeast has been found to be higher than that of inorganic
Selenium sources (Wang, 2009).
 Bioplex organic trace minerals (Zinc, Manganese, Copper, Cobalt) – these minerals are
chelated to help absorption. They activate enzymes, process carbohydrates, and
synthesize hormones and proteins (Corah, 1996).
Sample Collection: Fecal Picture 1 (Palpation)
Individual fecal samples of approximately 500g
were collected around 70d postpartum (April 30th). Cattle
were sent through the chutes by pen. There were eight cattle
in a pen and about four at a time were in the chute allowing
four people to collect. The samples were collected in clear
plastic bags by turning them inside out over the hand and
when cattle began to defecate, the bag was held out so that
all fecal matter was caught on the bag. It could then be
turned right side out so that all of the composite was in the
bag. None of the fecal samples were collected off of the
floor, even if cow ID could be linked to the feces.
Contaminated feces would interfere with the AIA results. It
was then tied up and labeled with cow ID in permanent
marker on both sides of the bag. Samples not obtained
while animals were standing in the chutes were removed
manually through palpation as seen in Picture 1.

6. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Composites were collected on April 30th at noon and April 30th at 8 pm. The final
composites were collected May 1st at 8 am. Cattle were fed the morning of April 30th and the
bunks were clear before fecal samples were collected. The cows were not fed again until after the
last fecal collection was taken that next morning. This was done to avoid further feed intake and
digestion by cattle before all samples were collected.
A few composites were collected twice, if the initial sample was not enough. Samples that
were taken twice were combined before being weighed out and dried. Fecal samples taken on April
30th were stored in a cooler for about two hours until they could be stored in the refrigerator
overnight. All samples were stored in Styrofoam coolers with ice packs from Orr Research Center
directly to the University of Illinois Beef Farm lab to be dried.
Sample Collection: Feed
Individual 200g samples of each feed ingredient and the total mixed ration were collected
for five consecutive days leading up to the day of fecal sampling. These feed samples were used
for the AIA procedure.
Drying and Grinding Procedure
The weight of the aluminum crucible was recorded and then tared. Fifty grams of the
composite from each bag was weighed out in the crucible. The pan number, weight, pan plus wet
fecal matter, and cow ID were all recorded. These composites were placed in a 55-degree Celsius
oven for three days. When composites were taken out of the oven, the pan plus dry fecal matter
weight was recorded, and dried composites were then transferred from crucibles to Whirl-packs
labeled with cow ID and date. These samples were then ground through a Wiley mill, 2mm
screen. The samples were then composited by pen. There were eight samples in each composite
and there were twelve composites. The amount of sample that went in to each composite was
based off of the dry matter percentages. The feed samples were weighed out and dried in a 55
degree Celsius oven for three days and then ground through a 1mm screen.
Analyses
The ground composites were analyzed for Acid Insoluble Ash (AIA) to determine and
compare the digestibility of both treatments. Using AIA to find digestibility offers distinct
advantages as opposed to traditional fecal/feed collection methods according to Van Keulen
(Van Keulen, 1977). This study found that it is easier when AIA is used because the animals do
not need to be confined or restrained for long amounts of time to collect multiple fecal samples.
AIA analysis can be done on a single fecal sample. The AIA content in feces is high, so this is
easier to analyze than a feedstuff like alfalfa that have a small AIA content. This study also
found that laboratory procedures are easier and less time consuming. According to Van Keulen,
the AIA analysis is a simple and practical way to collect digestibility data (Van Keulen, 1977).

7. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Dry weights of high form crucibles were recorded, and five grams of sample were
weighed into the crucibles and recorded to four decimal places. Doubles of each sample were
weighed and recorded, as well. The samples consisted of the twelve fecal composites, the total
mixed ration (TMR) of A and B, and the re-constructed TMR for A and B. Altogether, there
were thirty-two samples. Samples were heated at 100C for 9-12 hours. Samples were then
immediately transferred to a desiccator to cool for 45 minutes, and then weights were recorded.
Weighed samples were then loaded into a muffle oven along with a matching number of empty
crucibles plus two blanks. They were all ashed for 9-12 hours during the day at 600C and slowly
cooled in the muffle oven overnight. This heats out all the organic matter in the feed and feces so
that ash or the inorganic matter is the only thing left. Crucibles were then removed from muffle
oven and cooled in the dessicator. Weights were recorded. The ashed samples’ crucibles were
placed on their sides into a 600 mL Berzelius beaker containing 100 mL of 2N HCL. The beaker
was put on the extracting unit and boiled for exactly five minutes. The timer started when the
beaker reached a rapid boil. Tongs were used to remove the beaker from heat and set under the
hood. The acid bath breaks down minerals like calcium and phosphorus. Because those minerals
are inorganic they do not heat out during the first ashing. The acid breaks down the minerals
enough, so that the sample can be ashed a second time and they will heat out. The crucible was
rinsed with hot distilled water and then scraped with a disposable spatula to get the remaining
ash into the solution. After rinsing, contents were filtered through Whatman hardened #54 filter
paper. This filter paper is made of organic material so it could heat away during the ashing. The
filter paper was rinsed with very hot water to get filtrates to the base of the filter paper. The filter
paper was then folded and placed in empty crucibles that were ashed along with the samples.
Two of the crucibles contained only filter paper for blanks. The crucibles containing filter paper
were then ashed for 9-12 hours at 600C. Crucibles were cooled in a desiccator. After cooling,
weights were recorded. Weights of ashed samples and crucibles were entered into the calculation
below.
Equations
These equations were used to determine the AIA percentage of the feed and feces. Those
percentages were then used to find the dry matter digestibility.
% AIA = (Ashed crucible + filter paper – empty crucible – blank) * 100
(Sample weight x %DM)
% DM Dig = 1 – % AIA feed * 100
% AIA feces
% N Dig = 1 – % AIA feed x % N Feces * 100
% AIA feces % N Feed

8. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Materials
Ninety-six lactating SimAngus cows located at the University of Illinois Orr Research Center,
total mixed ration diets for individual cow on dry matter basis (9.5lb of corn silage, 11.5lb corn
stalks, 6.5lb DDGS, and .67lb of designated supplement), supplement A and B, the following
vaccines: (Endovac Beef-Immune Plus, Scourguard, Ultrabac, Vitamin AD, Eprinex), drying
oven, ashing oven, desiccator, 2 and 1 mm screen, Wiley mill, gloves, sample bags, Styrofoam
coolers, ice packs, high form and aluminum crucibles, scale, Whatman hardened #54 filter paper,
Berzelius beaker, tongs, disposable spatula, beakers, protective eyewear, lab coat, 100 ml of 2N
HCL.
Timeline:
 Day 0 - (February 17th) - AI Due Date
As cattle began to calve they were allotted to a treatment, either A or B.
 Day 66-71 - (April 25th/ April 29th) – Feed Collection
Individual feed ingredients and the total mixed ration were collected five consecutive days prior
to fecal sampling
 Day 72/73- (April 30th/May 1st) - AIA Fecal Collection
Individual fecal samples were collected from all ninety-six cows
 Day 73- (May 1st) – Dry Composites
Feed and fecal composites were dried in 55C degree oven for 3 days
 Day 85/86- (May 13th/May 14th) – Grind Composites
Feed and fecal composites were ground through a 1mm and 2mm screen, respectively.
 Day 139-(July 6th) – Analyze data through AIA
Composites were run through the Acid Insoluble Ash procedure to determine AIA%
Results:
The weight of the ashed crucibles was used in the equation shown in the methods to determine
the percent AIA. When looking at the AIA for feces, a lower AIA number is favored. Percentage
of AIA for feed and feces were used to determine dry matter digestibility. All odd numbered
pens were given treatment B and all even numbered pens were given treatment A, the
supplement with technologies. Each pen composite was replicated and the average AIA was used
to determine DM digestibility. Based on Table 3.1 below, there was a difference between the two
treatments with the raw data, in terms of AIA percentage and dry matter digestibility.
The raw data shown in table to 3.2 was run through statistical analysis software to determine any
statistical significance. The P value was less than 0.0001 and it was determined that there is
approximately a 7% increase in digestibility in the treatment supplemented with nutritional
technologies (A) as opposed to the control treatment supplemented with inorganic mineral and
no other technologies (B). Treatment A has 69.9 percent average digestibility and treatment B
had 63.0 percent average digestibility. The nutritional technologies did improve the digestibility
of the poor quality forage.

9. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
(Table 3.1) Acid Insoluble Ash Results
Table 3.2 (Average Digestibility for treatment A and B)
ID Trt ash wt. % AIA Average %AIA % DM dig. (based on reconstructed)
pen 1 feces B 0.3691 7.9973133 8.009351829 62.61523415
0.372 8.0213904
pen 2 feces A 0.469 10.047129 10.06894299 71.42622915
0.4692 10.090757
pen 3 feces B 0.4317 9.2407475 9.147619055 67.26713903
0.4204 9.0544906
pen 4 feces A 0.4549 9.7342292 10.04520211 71.35869774
0.4815 10.356175
pen 5 feces B 0.3629 7.7418667 7.755142737 61.38978316
0.3643 7.7684188
pen 6 feces A 0.4373 9.3256846 9.279731815 68.99612235
0.4295 9.2337791
pen 7 feces B 0.364 7.8704404 7.677301183 60.99830714
0.3485 7.4841619
pen 8 feces A 0.4492 9.5982906 9.562224201 69.91205564
0.4443 9.5261578
pen 9 feces B 0.3793 8.141232 8.219242068 63.56990824
0.3871 8.2972521
pen 10 feces A 0.4359 9.356085 9.61251324 70.0694644
0.4616 9.8689415
pen 11 feces B 0.3609 7.7509557 7.870295623 61.95470195
0.3731 7.9896355
pen 12 feces A 0.4175 8.9513518 8.965336537 67.90888233
0.4199 8.9793213

10. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Outcomes:
The hypothesis that the digestibility of low-quality forage will improve when the diet is
supplemented with the nutritional technologies was proven true. The six technologies found in
the commercial supplement “Cornstalk Maximizer” improved digestibility by 7 percent
(P<0.0001). The price difference between supplement A and B is $600 per ton, so the return on
investment will vary for each producer. In some instances it might be significantly cheaper to
purchase stalks and use nutritional technologies than to buy rather expensive high quality
feedstuffs and get the same digestibility. Here in Illinois, stalks are in abundance and if they can
be purchased at an inexpensive rate and supplemented with technologies like these, it might be
less expensive than purchasing high quality forage plus a mineral supplement. These
technologies can also stand alone. Most research studies, like the ones cited in this paper, show
that all six technologies have improved digestibility, weight gain, or overall performance on their
own. If this specific supplement is too expensive to have a return on investment for producers
then technologies can be bought individually and used depending on that producers specific
needs. Overall, the addition of nutritional technologies can be very beneficial to producers
looking to improve the performance of their cattle.
Future Studies:
I would like to see how these technologies could improve other aspects of cattle. Seeing that this
improved digestibility in a positive way there might be some improvements in cattle seen in
other areas like body weight, body condition score, calf health and overall performance. These
are things that could potentially improve with the addition of technologies in the diet, therefore
raising the cost-effectiveness of this product. The study on Fibrozyme found an increase in body
weight and the study on Sel-Plex found that the selenium yeast improved milk yields (Cranston
et. al., 2005; Wang, 2009). I also think that a study comparing high quality feedstuffs with basic
supplement and poor quality feedstuffs with nutritional technologies might be beneficial to
understand whether the technologies can save producers money.
Deliverables:
To provide producers with the knowledge of the effects these nutritional technologies could have
on their herd, so cattlemen can decide whether these nutritional technologies are worth buying
and using. Construct a research poster to present at ExplorACES and Undergraduate Research
Symposium to spread the knowledge of the impacts these technologies might have. Produce a
ten-page paper and presentation on the findings of this research to use as reference for future
studies.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my stakeholders Mike Tenhouse, Dr. Steve Cerney, Tom Saxe and Terry
Mefford. I would like to thank the Orr Beef Research Center staff and my mentor Wes Chapple.
I would also like to thank U.S. Feeds for donating the supplements used in this project. Lastly, I
would like to thank the ACES Office of Research, Dr. de Mejia, Parker Henley, and my advisor
Dr. Dan Shike.

11. Project #IL 44/15; IACUC #15008
Literature Cited
CAST, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 2003. Mycotoxins: Risks in Plant
Animal and Human Systems. Task Force Report No. 139. Ames, Iowa.
Corah, L. (1996). Trace mineral requirements of grazing cattle. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 59(1), 61-70.
Cranston, J. J., Krehbiel, C. R., McBeth, L. J., & Ball, R. A. (2005, January). Effects of roughage
level and Fibrozyme TM supplementation on performance and carcass characteristics of
finishing beef steers. In Plains Nutr. Council Spring Conf. Publ. Texas A&M Research
and Extension Center, Amarillo.
Galvano, F., A. Piva, A. Ritieni, and G. Galvano. 2001. Dietary strategies to counteract the
effects of mycotoxins: A review. J Food Prot. 64:120-131.
Jelinek, C.F., A.E. Pohland, and G.E. Wood. 1989. Worldwide occurrence of mycotoxins in
foods and feeds – an update. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 72:223-230.
Miller, A. J., D. B. Faulkner, R. K. Knipe, D. R. Strohbehn, D. F. Parrett, and L. L. Berger. 2001.
Critical control points for profitability in the cow-calf enterprise. Prof. Anim. Sci. 17:295.
Panjaitan T., Quigley S. P., McLennan S. R., Swain A. J., Poppi D. P. (2015) Spirulina
(Spirulina platensis) algae supplementation increases microbial protein production and
feed intake and decreases retention time of digesta in the rumen of cattle. Animal
Production Science 55, 535–543.
Proteinated and Chelated Mineral Complexes Livestock. (2002). Center for Food and Nutritional
Policy TAP Review.
Tassinari, M., L. F. Pastò, L. Sardi, S. Andrieu, and A. Aland. 2007.
Effects of mannan oligosaccharides in the diet of beef cattle in the transition period. In:
Proc. 13th International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Tartu, Estonia. Vol. 2. p. 810–815.
Thayne, J. T. (2007). The effects of Bio-Mos on lamb growth and immune function (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University).
Van Keulen, J. Evaluation of Acid-Insoluble Ash as a Natural Marker in Ruminant Digestibility
Studies. (1977). Journal of Animal Science, 44, 282-289.
Wang, C., Liu, Q., Yang, W., Dong, Q., Yang, X., He, D., & ... Huang, Y. (2009). Effects of
selenium yeast on rumen fermentation, lactation performance and feed digestibilities in
lactating dairy cows. Livestock Science, 126(1-3), 239-244.