Use of a commercial probiotic supplement in meat goats.

Sixty-three Boer crossbred goats were used in 5 separate experiments (Exp. 1 to 5) to evaluate the effects of a commercial probiotic supplement on growth performance (Exp. 1 to 4), diet digestibility (Exp. 5), carcass traits (Exp. 3), and fecal bacterial populations (Exp. 4). Goats were either fed a commercially pelleted concentrate diet and supplemented with a commercial probiotic (PRO) that had shown anecdotal positive effects on goat growth and performance according to local goat producers, or they remained as controls. The dose of PRO used was within the labeled dose for sheep for all studies. For Exp. 1, goat BW and feed intake were measured and G:F was calculated every 7 d for 56 d. For Exp. 2 to 4, BW and feed intake were measured and G:F was calculated every 14 d. The first day of supplementation was considered d 0. Carcass traits were also collected at slaughter on d 57 for Exp. 3, and fecal samples were collected every 14 d for microbial culture for Exp. 4. For Exp. 5, which was a digestibility trial that lasted for 10 d, animals were placed in metabolic pens for collection of feces and orts. Growth performance of goats was not affected by probiotic supplementation, with the exception of performance in Exp. 2, in which ADG and G:F were improved (P < 0.03) in PRO goats compared with control goats on d 56 only (treatment x day interaction; P < 0.05), averaging 0.21 +/- 0.02 kg/d for PRO goats and 0.11 +/- 0.02 kg/d for control goats for ADG and 0.17 +/- 0.02 for PRO goats and 0.10 +/- 0.02 for control goats for G:F. Carcass weights and weights of fabricated cuts (shoulder, loin, leg, rack, shank, and total parts) as well as carcass length, leg circumference, loin eye area, and backfat were not influenced by PRO supplementation. Apparent digestibilities of OM, DM, NDF, ADF, CP, and GE (on a DM basis) were similar for the PRO and control treatments. Fecal culture analysis of Escherichia coli and coliforms, Lactobacillus, and Bifidobacterium populations were not influenced by the PRO treatment. Overall, although the PRO treatment affected goat ADG and G:F in Exp. 2, no PRO treatment effects were noted on growth performance for Exp. 1, 3, and 4. Furthermore, the PRO treatment did not affect diet digestibility, carcass traits, or fecal microbial populations in goats. In conclusion, no consistent benefits were noted from supplementing healthy, growing meat goats with PRO.

Domperidone can ameliorate deleterious reproductive effects and reduced weight gain associated with fescue toxicosis in heifers.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a dopamine antagonist, domperidone, in nonpregnant, reproductively cycling heifers consuming endophyte-infected (EI) fescue diets. Thirty crossbred heifers (Angus x Holstein or Hereford x Holstein) were assigned to one of three treatment groups (n = 10); endophyte-free (EF) fescue diet, EI fescue diet, or endophyte-infected diet and treated with domperidone (EID). Heifers fed EI diets had decreased weight gains compared with heifers fed EF or EID (P < 0.05) during a 21-d treatment period. Ovarian structures were monitored via transrectal ultrasound to determine follicle size and day of ovulation. Blood plasma samples were collected daily and analyzed for progesterone concentration to determine luteal function. Heifers ingesting EI diets had estrous cycles of shorter duration and lower mid-cycle progesterone concentrations than heifers in the EF or EID treatments (P < 0.05). Ovaries from a subset of heifers in each group (n = 3 per group) were harvested and in vitro secretion of progesterone from luteal tissue extracts was determined. No differences in progesterone concentrations were detected among luteal tissue incubates (P > 0.05). These results suggest that domperidone supplementation of heifers consuming EI fescue may ameliorate certain symptoms of fescue toxicosis.