A Review of Bloat in Feedlot Cattle1,2

K.-J. Cheng*, T. A. McAllister*,3, J. D. Popp*, A. N. Hristov*,

Z. Mir*, and H. T. Shin†

*Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB Canada T1J 4B1
and †Sung Kyun Kwan University, Department of Dairy Science and Technology,
Suwon 440−746, Korea

ABSTRACT: Improvements in feedlot management Further, the excessive production of mucopolysaccha-

practices and the use of various feed additives have ride or “slime” increases the viscosity of ruminal fluid
reduced, but not eliminated, the occurrence of bloat in and stabilizes the foam implicated in frothy feedlot
feedlot cattle. Feedlot bloat reduces the profitability of bloat. Although protocols have been developed to treat
production by compromising animal performance and feedlot bloat, the most profitable approach is to use
more directly by causing fatalities. In feedlots, bloat is management strategies to reduce its likelihood.
associated with the ingestion of large amounts of Amount of roughage, grain processing techniques,
rapidly fermented cereal grain and destabilization of selection of cereal grain (e.g., corn, barley, and
the microbial populations of the rumen. An abundance wheat), dietary adaptation periods, and various addi-
of rapidly fermented carbohydrate allows acid-tolerant tives (e.g., ionophores) can influence the occurrence of
bacteria (e.g., Streptococcus bovis and Lactobacillus bloat in feedlot cattle. Successful management of these
spp.) to proliferate and produce excessive quantities of factors depends on a thorough understanding of the
fermentation acids. As a result, ruminal pH becomes behavioral, dietary, and microbial events that precipi-
exceedingly low, and this impairs rumen motility. tate bloat in feedlot cattle.

Key Words: Bloat, Feedlots, Cattle, Viscosity, Rumen

1998 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 1998. 76:299–308

Introduction finishing diets (Berry et al., 1988).

Cattle evolved consuming forage from temperate
Cereal grain is the principal source of energy in grasslands; thus, in evolutionary terms, cereal grains
diets of feedlot cattle in North America; finishing diets are a novel food source. The rumen has a capacity
typically consist of 90% grain and 10% forage (dry sufficient to accommodate a large quantity of bulky
matter basis). Several factors, including the greater forage normally consumed during a grazing bout.
energy density and ease of transport, storage, and Particle size reduction and digestion of forage occurs
blending of grains, relative to forages, have led to over a relatively long period of time (i.e., 12 to 24 h )
adoption of grain-based finishing diets as opposed to and is accomplished by the combined processes of
less energy-dense forage diets. Nutritional value is microbial fermentation and rumination. With the
more predictable in grain than in forages, enabling introduction of cereal grain into the diet, principal
producers to finish cattle in a consistent and uniform substrates for microbial fermentation change from
manner. Finally, consumer preference (e.g., degree of
slowly digested plant cell wall components (e.g.,
marbling and white fat) for grain-fed beef as opposed
cellulose and hemicellulose) to rapidly digested
to forage-fed beef encourages the use of grain in
starch. Abundance of available energy in the rumen
and accumulation of rapidly produced fermentation
acids and bacterial mucopolysaccharides can disrupt
1Presented at a symposium titled “Bud Britton Memorial
normal rumen function and promote formation of
Symposium: Metabolic Disorders of Feedlot Cattle”, July 1996,
following the ASAS 88th Annu. Mtg., Rapid City, SD.
stable foam indicative of frothy bloat. Optimizing
2Contribution number 3879683. utilization of cereal grains while maintaining normal
3To whom correspondence should be addressed: telephone: 403/
rumen function and animal health continues to be one
327−4561; fax: 403/382−3156. of the major challenges faced by the feedlot industry.
Received September 30, 1996.
Accepted April 2, 1997.

299

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 300 CHENG ET AL.

Incidence and Economic Impact

A survey of 28,593,575 feedlot cattle on the great

plains between 1990 and 1993 indicated that mortal-
ity from digestive disturbances (i.e., bloat, acidosis,
and coccidiosis) was .061% of all fed cattle. Of these
digestive mortalities, 24% were attributed to bloat
(Vogel and Parrott, 1994). By comparison, in a survey
conducted in the early 1970s, covering 450,000 feedlot
cattle, bloat accounted for .1% of all mortalities
(Clarke and Reid, 1972). This suggests that changes
in management practices have reduced deaths due to
bloat. However, a recent survey in western Canada
(16,396 feedlot cattle) found that mortalities at-
tributable to bloat ranged between .1 and .2%
(Merrill, 1994). Thus, the incidence of bloat may be
site-dependent, with variables such as bunk manage-
ment, diet composition, and animal type contributing
to the incidence of the disease. Death is the most
visible economic loss associated with feedlot bloat, but Figure 1. Animal, dietary, and microbial factors
the financial losses incurred with culling and treat- involved in the development of feedlot bloat.
ment of bloat-prone animals and lost production in
surviving cattle likely are even costlier (Clarke and
Reid, 1974). Although numerous improvements in
feed and animal management have been implemented rumen. Cattle with severe chronic pneumonia (Garry,
to reduce bloat in feedlot cattle, this disorder still 1990) or hardware disease also may develop free-gas
represents a major economic loss to producers. bloat due to damage to the vagus nerve and impaired
rumen motility. Thoracic and abdominal inflammation
and abscessing also can cause free-gas bloat by
Etiology of Feedlot Bloat compressing or distorting the esophagus, disturbing
the reticular wall, and altering sensory function of the
Bloat is a ruminal dysfunction that results from the rumen wall. Impaired rumen motility as a result of
accumulation of excessive gas within the rumen. Bloat the rapid onset of acidosis or hypocalcemia also may
in feedlot cattle is caused by several factors and induce free-gas bloat. This form of bloat usually can be
interactions involving management, feed, animal, and relieved quite easily by removal of the esophageal
microbial factors (Figure 1). Gases are produced in obstruction or through intubation of the rumen.
the rumen as normal by-products of microbial fermen- However, cattle that exhibit chronic free-gas bloat
tation at a rate of .2 (in feed-deprived animals) to 2.0 often have incurred permanent impairment of the
L/min (Clarke and Reid, 1974). Normally, the eructation reflex and should be culled for slaughter.
majority of fermentation gases are eliminated from Although its rapid onset and high mortality rate
the rumen via eructation. Eructation is a complex give free-gas bloat more notoriety than frothy bloat,
series of muscular contractions in which gas is forced 90% of feedlot bloat cases are of the frothy type
from the rumen through the cardia and is released (Howarth et al., 1991). Normally, gas in the rumen
through the esophagus. The eructation sequence is forms bubbles that rise through the rumen contents
initiated by the presence of free gas in the dorsal sac and coalesce to form a dorsal gas pocket in the rumen.
of the rumen. Thus, if ruminal conditions prevent Ruminal contents typically are stratified; partially
normal contractions from occurring in the reticulo- digested feed particles are readily discernible in the
rumen or if movement of free gas through the cardia digesta of animals in which gas has separated
or esophagus is obstructed, bloat occurs (Clarke and normally from fluid and feed particles (Figure 2A). In
Reid, 1974). As gas accumulates, the expanding contrast, ruminal contents in animals suffering from
rumen exerts pressure on the diaphragm and lungs, frothy bloat form a dispersion of gas, liquid, and feed
impairs respiration, and ultimately leads to death particles (Figure 2B). With frothy bloat on pasture,
(Bartley et al., 1975). plant components apparently are primarily responsi-
Bloat can be classified into two types: free-gas bloat ble for foam production (Mangan, 1988; Majak et al.,
and frothy bloat. Free-gas bloat most often is as- 1995); with feedlot bloat, the foam-producing agents
sociated with obstruction of the esophagus or cardia. seem to be chiefly of microbial origin (Cheng and
Incompletely processed or chewed feeds such as Costerton, 1975; Cheng et al., 1976). Not all animals
potatoes, sugar beets, and turnips can become lodged with frothy rumen contents will bloat, but the foam in
in the esophagus and prevent passage of gas from the animals that do bloat is extremely persistent and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 BLOAT IN FEEDLOT CATTLE 301
1972). This pressure can be clearly demonstrated and
rapidly relieved in ruminally fistulated animals by
opening the cannula, which results in the forcible
expulsion of the majority of the ruminal contents
(Figure 2C). Most animals, however, are not surgi-
cally fistulated; for them, removing the gas to relieve
bloat often requires the use of anti-foaming agents
(see below), because the foam restricts movement of
gas through a stomach tube or small trocar-cannula.
Feedlot bloat generally occurs in cattle fed diets
that contain more than 50% grain; it is observed most
often when cattle are being shifted from low-grain to
high-grain diets (Cheng and Hironaka, 1973;
Howarth et al., 1991). Warmer seasons have been
associated with higher incidence of bloat; this may be
due to heat-related fluctuations in feed intake (Perry,
1995).

Microbiology of Feedlot Bloat

Excessive production of bacterial mucopolysaccha-
rides (slime) and release of unidentified macro-
molecules during cell lysis (Cheng et al., 1976)
contribute to the formation of stable froth and
substantially increase the viscosity of ruminal fluid.
The extent of slime production varies among ruminal
bacteria (Figure 3A, 3C); with certain ruminal
species, such slime is observed even in culture (Figure
3B). Production of slime by the ruminal bacterium
Streptococcus bovis is closely related to the amount of
available energy. Highest culture viscosities are ob-
served when energy is abundant (Cheng et al., 1976,
Figure 4A). Culture viscosity can be reduced dramati-
cally through the hydrolysis of dextran fibers by
dextranase (Figure 4B). Some of the exogenous
enzyme preparations currently being developed for use
in ruminant diets (Hristov et al., 1996) may reduce
the occurrence of bloat through degrading the bac-
terial carbohydrate that contributes to the high
ruminal fluid viscosities that are associated with
feedlot bloat. Use of such preparations also may
enhance digestion by reducing the viscosity-mediated
impairment of nutrient utilization in the small
intestine (Bedford, 1996).
Figure 2. (A) Normal and (B) frothy rumen contents Increased ruminal populations of S. bovis have been
from steers fed a barley-based finishing diet. (C) observed in bloated animals (Mishra, 1965; Bartley et
Expulsion of rumen contents from a bloated steer fed a al., 1983), but the predominance of this bacterium in
barley-based finishing phase diet. Accumulation of the rumen is not a prerequisite for development of
pressure within the rumen was such (> 70 mm Hg; bloat (Hironaka et al., 1973). Although bloat often is
Lippke et al., 1972) that the majority of rumen contents associated with acidosis, it can occur when the pH of
were expelled when the ruminal cannula was opened. ruminal fluid is above 6.0 (Sakauchi and Hoshino,
1981a). Streptococci also commonly are associated
with acidosis (Allison et al., 1975); presence of high
numbers of these bacteria may reflect the simultane-
often occupies the entire lumen of the reticulo-rumen. ous occurrence of both digestive diseases.
When the cardia is covered with foam, eructation is Bloat research has revealed a substantial diversity
inhibited (Dougherty, 1956), and the accumulation of in the numbers and kinds of bacteria associated with
gas in the rumen can increase intraruminal pressures feedlot bloat (Bryant et al., 1961; Sakauchi and
to values over 70 mm Hg or 9.34 kPa (Lippke et al., Hoshino, 1981a); many of these species store carbohy-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 302 CHENG ET AL.

drates intracellularly when high-energy diets are fed. tion schedules can help reduce the likelihood of bloat
Release of such material upon bacterial cell lysis in feedlot cattle.
contributes to an increased viscosity of ruminal fluid
in addition to the extracellular slime. The frothy Regulation of Cereal Grain Digestion
nature of ruminal contents makes isolation of bacteria
from bloated animals particularly difficult; recent Type of Cereal Grain. Cereal grains differ in their
development of bacterial probes based on small rates of ruminal fermentation. Rate and extent of
subunit ribosomal RNA sequences (Odelson et al., fermentation of wheat are greater than those of
1993; Forster and Gong, 1995) may expedite elucida- barley, sorghum, or corn (McAllister et al., 1990).
tion of the bacterial population associated with feedlot Between 80 and 90% of the starch in barley and wheat
bloat. is digested within the rumen; this value ranges from
Ruminal protozoal populations of bloated and non- 55 to 70% for sorghum and corn (Nocek and Tam-
bloated feedlot cattle differ only in minor ways minga, 1991). The protein matrix surrounding the
(Sakauchi and Hoshino 1981a,b), and involvement of starch granules within the endosperm is primarily
protozoa in feedlot bloat remains unclear. Because responsible for these differences in ruminal digestion
protozoa readily engulf ruminal bacteria and starch among cereal grains (Kotarski et al., 1992; McAllister
granules (Bonhomme, 1990), they may reduce the et al., 1993). To our knowledge, no experiments have
formation of bacterial slime in the rumen and retard been conducted to determine whether there is a
acid production. difference in the incidence of bloat among cereal
grains, but there is an industry perception that bloat
Animal Physiology and Feedlot Bloat occurs most frequently in feedlot cattle fed wheat-
based diets. The incidence of acidosis in feedlot cattle
Animal variability also plays a role in the develop- also is higher with wheat than with other cereal
ment of bloat; individual animals vary in susceptibil- grains (Elam, 1976), so an increased frequency of
ity. Anatomical differences in the rumen, eructation acidotic-related bloat may account for this perception.
proficiency, salivary production, epinephrine secretion Differences in ruminal fermentation also have been
levels, and appetite all may influence the development found among barley and wheat varieties (Boss and
of bloat (Carruthers et al., 1988; B. Berg, T. A. Bowman, 1996; T. A. McAllister and K.-J. Cheng,
McAllister, and K.-J. Cheng, unpublished data). unpublished data), but these differences are less
Cattle with a history of feedlot bloat tend to produce dramatic than those observed among varieties of
more foam in the rumen and have a slower fractional sorghum and corn. Varner and Woods (1975) ob-
outflow rate of fluid from the rumen than do non- served the incidence of digestive disturbances among
bloating animals (Okine et al., 1989). Presumably, ruminants to differ with the wheat variety fed, and
the slower outflow of fluid promotes the accumulation perhaps similar differences exist among other cereal
of froth and gas in the rumen and increases the grains. Selection of cereal grain varieties for reduced
likelihood of bloat. Although selection of breeds of bloat is not likely to prove feasible, because feed
cattle resistant to pasture bloat has been attempted grains usually are blends of varieties dictated by cost
(Reid et al., 1975), similar research efforts have not and availability. Environmental variation with year
been undertaken to overcome feedlot bloat. However, and location also may affect the propensity of a grain
the incidence of feedlot bloat is higher in Holstein to cause feedlot bloat.
cattle than in beef cattle; perhaps this is attributable Grain Processing. Processing grain increases the
to the greater feed intake or an increased time to rate and extent of ruminal starch digestion and
finish (Vogel and Parrott, 1994). In contrast, Brah- reduces the amount of starch available for digestion in
man cattle may be more likely to develop acidosis than the small intestine. Typically, grains are ground,
Hereford or Angus cattle (Hentges, 1970 [cited by cracked, flaked, or steam-rolled to disrupt the pericarp
Perry, 1995]); hence, breed may affect the propensity and provide microorganisms access to the nutrient-
to develop feedlot bloat. Unfortunately, no easy rich components of the endosperm. As particle size
method is available to determine an animal’s relative becomes smaller, more starch is exposed to digestion
vulnerability to bloat until after bloat has occurred. by microbial enzymes; the accelerated production of
organic acids and mucopolysaccharides leads to a
decline in pH and an increase in the viscosity of
Prevention of Feedlot Bloat ruminal fluid (Figure 5; Cheng and Hironaka, 1973;
Hironaka et al., 1973). Minimal processing of barley
Although regimens have been developed to treat (i.e., merely cracking the pericarp or hull) has proven
feedlot bloat, it is far more profitable to use manage- effective for slowing ruminal digestion (McAllister
ment strategies to reduce its incidence. Amount of and Cheng, 1996). Tempering barley to 15% moisture
roughage, grain processing techniques, selection of before rolling reduces the shattering of cereal kernels
cereal grain (e.g., corn, barley, and wheat), various and production of fine particles. The optimal level for
feed additives (e.g., ionophores), and dietary adapta- grain processing should maintain an acceptable level

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 BLOAT IN FEEDLOT CATTLE 303

Figure 3. Transmission electron micrographs of the bacterial slime produced by ruminal bacteria. (A) Streptococcus
sp. A thick amorphous slime capsule surrounds each of the cells. (B) Ruminal isolates clump and form slime collars
on test tube walls when cultured. (C) The extent of slime production varies among bacteria. The cells in this
micrograph are enmeshed in a glycocalyx slime that is even more extensive than that formed by Streptococcus in
micrograph A. Bars in (A) and (B) = .5 mm.

of grain digestion in the total tract but reduce the particle size between .25 and 1.0 mm. However,
occurrence of bloat. Kim and Owens (1985) suggest minimal grain processing, as with most management
that these two criteria may be satisfied by a corn practices, is sufficient per se to achieve bloat preven-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 304 CHENG ET AL.

starch and protein that slow the rate of starch

digestion in the rumen. Micronization is a dry heat
treatment in which internal kernel temperature is
raised to 90 to 100°C, typically for 1 min. Replacement
of steam-rolled barley with steam-rolled wheat in a
finishing diet for feedlot steers resulted in a linear
increase in feed intake, but a linear decline in both
feed efficiency and average daily gain. However, if the
replacement wheat was micronized before steam-
rolling, its rate of digestion in the rumen was slowed,
and the negative effects of wheat on average daily
gain and feed efficiency were alleviated (McAllister et
al., 1996). Implementation of new feed processing
techniques such as scarification or removal of a
portion of the pericarp (e.g., partial pearling) may
allow further refinement of particle size and bloat
control for cattle fed high-grain diets.
Amount and Type of Forage. Increasing the propor-
tion of grass forage or silage in the diet reduces the
rate of fermentation in the rumen, stimulates saliva
production, and increases the pH of ruminal fluid
(Preston et al., 1963; Merchen et al., 1986; Beauche-
min, 1991; Zinn et al., 1994). In most instances
(alfalfa being the exception) the addition of forage to
a feedlot diet also reduces the incidence of bloat
(Preston et al., 1963). Unfortunately, increasing the
level of forage above 20% in sorghum and corn diets
often depresses growth rate due to reduced diet
digestibility (Bartle et al., 1994; Zinn et al., 1994).
Figure 4. (Top panel) Development of viscosity in Nonetheless, inclusion of forage in diets containing
cultures of Streptococcus bovis grown in the presence of more rapidly fermentable cereal grains, such as barley
.5, 3, and 6% sucrose. (Bottom panel) Reduction in S. or wheat, may sustain or improve animal performance
bovis culture viscosity as a result of digestion of slime by reducing digestive disturbances (Kreikemeier et
polysaccharides by added dextranase (1,6-a-glucan- al., 1990). In general, the risk of acidosis increases as
6-glucanohydrolase EC 3.2.1.11; .05 unit/mL). Adapted the amount of forage in a high-grain feedlot diet is
from Cheng et al., 1976. decreased. However, it is impossible to describe
accurately the risk associated with a given amount of
forage, because forage itself varies considerably and
other etiological factors (outlined above) are involved
tion. Occasionally, bloat in feedlot cattle is greater in the development of digestive upset. Swingle (1995)
when the cattle are fed whole barley compared to maintains that better characterization of critical
rolled barley (Mathison et al., 1991; Yaremcio et al., ruminal pH values, of subsequent effects of low
1991); hence, factors other than the nature of the ruminal pH on animal performance, and of amount(s)
grain must have precipitated bloat. Bloat is influenced of forage required to counteract these adverse changes
by myriad variables (Figure 1), which makes it is essential for defining the optimum level of forage in
impossible to develop a single management practice finishing diets. He advocates development of a “rough-
for bloat control. Even with grain processing, factors age equivalency” system that would permit more
such as variety, bushel weight, and roller wear can effective and predictable use of different roughage
alter particle size and influence the likelihood of bloat. sources in feedlot diets.
Extensive processing methods, such as steam flak- Adaptation and Limit Feeding. Bloat frequently
ing, popping, and micronizing, involve the application occurs during the transition from forage to high-
of heat to the cereal grain and gelatinization of starch concentrate diets (Ramsey et al., 1997). Different
(Evers and Stevens, 1985). Beyond grinding, gelatini- microbial species predominate in the ruminal
zation increases the accessibility of starch to microbial ecosystem during digestion of forage than during
enzymes so that the rate of ruminal starch digestion of digestion of cereal grains (Dehority and Orpin, 1988).
steam-flaked sorghum is approximately three times Thus, if bloat is to be avoided, time must be allowed
greater than that of ground sorghum (Theurer, 1986). (14 to 21 d ) for the microbial populations to adjust to
In contrast, dry heat can form complexes between and stabilize after the dramatic changes in substrate

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 BLOAT IN FEEDLOT CATTLE 305
that occur when cattle are switched from a high-forage
to a high-concentrate diet. One of the easiest ways to
successfully effect this transition is to provide cattle
with a mixed diet (30 to 40% roughage and 50 to 60%
cereal grain) when they enter the feedlot and
maintain them on this diet for 7 to 10 d. If no bloat or
acidosis is noted, roughage is decreased by 10% every
2 to 4 d until the desired amount of grain in the diet is
reached (Elam, 1976). With proper feed processing
techniques and prudent bunk and animal manage-
ment, the transition from a high-forage to a high-
concentrate diet can be accomplished in as little as 10
d, with only two or three step-up diets (Hironaka,
1968). The success of this step-up program is in-
fluenced by a number of factors, including frequency of
feeding, type and quality of forage, type of grain,
method of feed processing, and breed of cattle.

Additives
Ionophores. Ionophores inhibit the growth of most
Gram-positive bacteria (Westley, 1977); this includes
the major lactic acid- and mucopolysaccharide-produc-
ing species S. bovis and Lactobacillus spp. (Dennis et
al., 1981). In addition, ionophores reduce the severity
of feedlot bloat (Nagaraja and Wolfrom, 1993;
Nagaraja, 1994). These compounds interfere with
establishment of cellular ionic gradients required for
nutrient transport and energy generation in iono-
phore-sensitive bacteria. Potency differs among iono-
phores; salinomycin is about three times as potent as Figure 5. (Top panel) Development of viscosity in
either monensin or lasalocid (Merchen and Berger, cell-free ruminal fluid in cows fed a coarse (geometric
1985; Nagaraja et al., 1987). Direct comparisons have mean particle size, 519 mm) or fine (geometric mean
demonstrated that S. bovis is more sensitive in vitro to particle size, 344 mm) particle size barley-based diet.
salinomycin than to monensin (Leblanc et al., 1993). Cows were gradually adapted to the concentrate diet
Although the reason for this specificity is unclear, it between d 0 and 9 and were fed an all-concentrate diet
may be related to differences in solubility between between d 9 and 18. (Bottom panel) Post-feeding
these ionophores. Whereas salinomycin and monensin changes in the pH of cell-free ruminal fluid from cows
prevent bloat (Hoshino et al., 1987; Branine and fed hay or all-concentrate (coarse or fine particle size)
Galyean, 1990), some studies indicate that monensin diets. Adapted from Cheng and Hironaka, 1973.
is more effective than salinomycin (Bartley et al.,
1983). Cattle often exhibit lower feed intake when fed
monensin than when fed salinomycin (T. A. McAl-
lister and K.-J. Cheng, unpublished data); thus, lower not eliminated by this preparation (Clarke and Reid,
intake of rapidly fermented carbohydrate may par- 1974). Laundry detergent also has been advocated as
tially explain the difference in bloat incidence among a bloat preventative, but comparative studies indicate
animals receiving these two ionophores. Monensin that it is ineffective (Hall and Majak, 1992).
also has been shown to reduce daily variation in feed A commercial mineral mix (Silent Herder) has
intake. This change in feeding behavior also may been promoted as a bloat preventative (Hart, 1993); it
contribute to the reduction in bloat in ionophore- was only partially effective at preventing pasture
supplemented feedlot cattle (Stock et al., 1995). bloat (Hall et al., 1994). Addition of 4% salt to feedlot
Bloat Preventatives. Most bloat preventatives were diets has been shown to reduce bloat, possibly by
developed to control pasture bloat; consequently, few reducing feed intake and increasing the rate of
products have been tested in the feedlot. Pluronics are passage of fluid through the rumen (Cheng et al.,
special low-foam detergents that reduce the surface 1979). Inclusion of mineral oil at 4 to 8% of the diet
tension of foam and reduce foam stability in the reduced the incidence of bloat in feedlot cattle, but
rumen. Complete elimination of pasture bloat has animal fat had no effect and soybean oil increased the
been achieved with poloxalene (Bloat Guard; Majak incidence of bloat (Elam and Davis, 1962). Unfor-
et al., 1995); occurrence of feedlot bloat is reduced but tunately, because animal performance on high-salt

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 306 CHENG ET AL.

and -oil diets is impaired, such methods are more Berry, B. W., K. F. Leddy, J. Bond, T. S. Rumsey, and A. C.
effective for treatment than for prevention. Sup- Hammond. 1988. Effects of silage diets and electrical stimula-
tion on the palatability, cooking and pH characteristics of beef
plemental fat slightly reduces ruminal starch diges- loin steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 66:892−900.
tion rate (Gramlich et al., 1993); if achieved without Bonhomme, A. 1990. Rumen ciliates: Their metabolism and relation-
compromising the extent of digestion, this could ships with bacteria and their hosts. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.
reduce the incidence of acidosis in feedlot cattle and 30:203−266.
may curtail acidosis-related feedlot bloat. Live yeast Boss, D. L., and J.G.P. Bowman. 1996. Barley varieties for finishing
steers: I. Feedlot performance, in vivo diet digestion, and car-
cultures in diets promote lactate utilization in the cass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1967−1972.
rumen (Martin and Nisbet, 1992); they reduced the Branine, M. E., and M. L. Galyean. 1990. Influence of grain and
incidence of acidosis in finishing steers fed a diet high monensin supplementation on ruminal fermentation, intake,
in barley (Mir and Mir, 1994). digesta kinetics and incidence and severity of frothy bloat in
Blocare R 4511 is a particularly promising bloat steers grazing winter wheat pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 68:
1139−1150.
preventative that has been used to prevent pasture Bryant, M. P., I. M. Robinson, and I. L. Lindahl. 1961. A note on the
bloat in New Zealand for more than 20 yr. This flora and fauna in the rumen of steers fed a feedlot bloat-
product is a combination of pluronic detergents with provoking ration and the effect of penicillin. Appl. Microbiol. 9:
an additional anti-bloat agent, alcohol ethoxylate. 511−515.
Carruthers, V. R., A. M. Bryant, and F.R.M. Cockrem. 1988. Quan-
Preliminary tests with this product have shown that,
tity of digesta in the reticulo-rumen of cows differing in suscep-
administered in water, it is 100% effective at control- tibility to bloat. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 31:111−119.
ing pasture bloat at a cost of 3 cents·animal−1·d−1 (W. Cheng, K.-J., C. B. Bailey, R. Hironaka, and J. W. Costerton. 1979.
Majak, unpublished data). Effectiveness of this Bloat in feedlot cattle: Effects on rumen function of adding 4%
product for control of bloat in the feedlot remains sodium chloride to a concentrate diet. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59:
737−747.
unknown.
Cheng, K.-J., and J. W. Costerton. 1975. Ultrastructure of cell-
envelopes of bacteria of the bovine rumen. Appl. Microbiol. 29:
841−849.
Implications Cheng, K.-J., and R. Hironaka. 1973. Influence of feed particle size
on pH, carbohydrate content, and viscosity of rumen fluid. Can.
J. Anim. Sci. 53:417−422.
Proper diet and bunk management are key factors
Cheng, K.-J., R. Hironaka, G. A. Jones, T. Nicas, and J. W. Coster-
in the prevention of bloat in the feedlot. Whereas ton. 1976. Frothy feedlot bloat in cattle: production of extracel-
various additives can be used to reduce the likelihood lular polysaccharides and development of viscosity in cultures
of bloat, they are of little use if the feed is not properly of Streptococcus bovis. Can. J. Microbiol. 22:450−459.
processed or sufficient time for adaptation of microbial Clarke, R.T.J., and C.S.W. Reid. 1974. Foamy bloat of cattle. A
review. J. Dairy Sci. 57:753−785.
populations is not allowed. With public pressure to Dehority, B. A., and C. G. Orpin. 1988. Development of, and natural
reduce the use of antibiotics increasing and expenses fluctuations in, rumen microbial populations. In: P. N. Hobson
associated with obtaining regulatory approval of feed (Ed.) The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. pp 151−183. Elsevier
additives becoming prohibitive, producers must rely Applied Science, New York.
Dennis, S. M., T. G. Nagaraja, and E. E. Bartley. 1981. Effects of
increasingly on innovative feeding strategies to pre-
lasalocid or monensin on lactate-producing or -using rumen
vent bloat in feedlot cattle. bacteria. J. Anim. Sci. 52:418−426.
Dougherty, R. W. 1956. Physiology of the rumen as related to bloat.
In: A review of bloat in ruminants. NAS-NRC Publ. No. 388.
Literature Cited Elam, C. J. 1976. Acidosis in feedlot cattle: Practical observations. J.
Anim. Sci. 43:898−901.
Elam, C. J., and R. E. Davis. 1962. Ruminal characteristics and
Allison, M. J., I. M. Robinson, R. W. Dougherty, and J. A. Bucklin. feedlot bloat incidence in cattle as influenced by vegetable oil,
1975. Grain overload in cattle and sheep: Changes in microbial mineral oil and animal fat. J. Anim. Sci. 21:568−574.
populations in the cecum and rumen. Am. J. Vet Res. 36: Evers, A. D., and D. J. Stevens. 1985. Starch damage. In: Y. Pomer-
181−185. anz (Ed.) Advances in Cereal Science Technology. pp 321−349.
Bartle, S. J., R. L. Preston, and M. F. Miller. 1994. Dietary energy American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN.
source and density: Effects of roughage source, roughage Forster, R. J., and J. Gong. 1995. Probing the rumen: Molecular
equivalent, tallow level, and steer type on feedlot performance genetics and the rumen microbial ecosystem. In: M. Ivan (Ed.)
and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1943−1953. Animal Science Research and Development: Toward a New
Bartley, E. E., R. M. Meyer, and L. R. Fina. 1975. Feedlot or grain Century. pp 570−578. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada,
bloat. In: I. W. McDonald and A.C.I. Warner (Ed.) Digestion Ottawa, ON.
and Metabolism in the Ruminant. pp 551−562. The University Garry, F. 1990. Managing bloat in cattle. Symposium on bovine
of New England Publishing Unit. Armidale, Australia. digestive diseases. Vet. Med. June:643−650.
Bartley, E. E., T. G. Nagaraja, E. S. Pressman, A. D. Dayton, M. P. Gramlich, S. M., R. T. Brandt, Jr., T. G. Nagaraja, S. A. Shuey, and
Katz, and L. R. Fina. 1983. Effects of lasalocid or monensin on G. Towne. 1993. Effects of tallow and monensin on sub-acute
legume or grain (feedlot) bloat. J. Anim. Sci. 56:1400−1406. acidosis in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):79.
Beauchemin, K. A. 1991. Ingestion and mastication of feed by dairy Hall, J. W., and W. Majak. 1992. Rapid screening of feed supple-
cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 7:439−463. ments for the prevention of legume bloat. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:
Bedford, M. R. 1996. Factors influencing the efficiency of enzymes 613−617.
used in wheat based broiler diets. In: 17th Western Nutrition Hall, J. W., I. Walker, and W. Majak. 1994. Evaluation of two
Conference, Technical Symposium. pp 9−16. Edmonton, AB, supplements for the prevention of alfalfa bloat. Can. Vet. J. 35:
Canada. 702−705.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 BLOAT IN FEEDLOT CATTLE 307
Hart, L. 1993. Bloat: Still no guarantee in life. Country Guide, Merrill, J. 1994. A Canadian Feedlot Health and Nutrition Sympo-
Western Ed., January, p 27. sium, Rumensin field trial results. Elanco Animal Health,
Hentges, J. F. Jr. 1970. Factors affecting feedlot performance of beef Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
cattle. Fla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Mimeo Rep. AN70−8. Mir, Z., and P. S. Mir. 1994. Effect of the addition of live yeast
Hironaka, R. 1968. Starter rations for beef cattle in feedlots. Can. J. ( Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on growth and carcass quality of
Anim. Sci. 49:181−188. steers fed high-forage or high-grain diets and on feed digestibil-
Hironaka, R., J. E. Miltimore, J. M. McArthur, D. R. McGregor, and ity and in situ degradability. J. Anim. Sci. 72:537−545.
E. S. Smith. 1973. Influence of particle size of concentrate on Mishra, B. 1965. Role of Streptococcus bovis in rumen metabolism
rumen conditions associated with feedlot bloat. Can. J. Anim. with special reference to bloat in cattle. Indian J. Vet. Sci. 37:
Sci. 53:75−80. 232.
Hoshino, S., M. Wakita, and Y. Kobayashi. 1987. Effects of Nagaraja, T. G. 1994. Rumen microbial and fermentative changes
salinomycin on grain bloat in fattening Japanese black cattle. associated with grain bloat in cattle. Proc. Soc. Nutr. Physiol. 3:
J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 57:123−129. 207. (Abstr.).
Howarth, R. E., R. K. Chaplin, K.-J. Cheng, B. P. Goplen, J. W. Hall, Nagaraja, T. G., M. B. Taylor, D. L. Harmon, and J. E. Boyer. 1987.
R. Hironaka, W. Majak, and O. M. Radostits. 1991. Bloat in In vitro lactic acid inhibition and alterations in volatile fatty
cattle. pp 1−32. Agriculture Canada Publication 1858/E. acid production by antimicrobial feed additives. J. Anim. Sci.
Hristov, A., T. A. McAllister, and K.-J. Cheng. 1996. Exogenous 65:1064−1076.
enzymes for ruminants: Modes of action and potential applica- Nagaraja, T. G., and G. W. Wolfrom. 1993. Evaluation of lysocellin
tions. In: 17th Western Nutrition Conference, Technical Sym- on frothy bloat in cattle fed bloat-provocative, high-grain diet.
posium. pp 51−61. Edmonton, AB, Canada. J. Anim. Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):79.
Kim, Y. K., and F. N. Owens. 1985. Starch digestion by feedlot Nocek, J. E., and S. Tamminga. 1991. Site of digestion of starch in
cattle: influence of roughage and intake level and particle size. the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows and its effect on milk
Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-17:298−305. yield and composition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3598−3629.
Kotarski, S. F., R. D. Waniska, and K. K. Thurn. 1992. Starch Odelson, D. A., L. Nelms, S. F. Kotarski, and R. B. Hespell. 1993.
hydrolysis by the ruminal microflora. J. Nutr. 122:178−190. Development of a DNA probe for the detection of ruminal
Kreikemeier, K. K., D. L. Harmon, R. T. Brandt Jr., T. G. Nagaraja, Streptococcus bovis. 22nd Conference on Rumen Function 22:
and R. C. Cochran. 1990. Steam-rolled wheat diets for finishing 12. Chicago, IL.
cattle: Effects of dietary roughage and feed intake on finishing Okine, E. K., G. W. Mathison, and R. T. Hardin. 1989. Relations
steer performance and ruminal metabolism. J. Anim. Sci. 68: between passage rates of rumen fluid and particulate matter
2130−2141. and foam production in rumen contents of cattle fed on differ-
Leblanc, D., A. Morin, and J. Diagneault. 1993. Comparative effect ent diets ad lib. Br. J. Nutr. 61:387−395.
of salinomycin and monensin on Streptococcus bovis strain Perry, T. W. 1995. Feedlot disease. In: T. W. Perry and M. J. Cecava
ATCC-9809. Microbios 76:41−45. (Ed.) Beef Cattle Feeding and Nutrition (2nd Ed.). pp
Lippke, H., J. L. Reaves, and N. L. Jacobson. 1972. Rumen pressures 283−290. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
associated with the scores of a bloat severity scale. J. Anim. Sci. Preston, T. R., J. N. Aitken, F. G. Whitelaw, A. Macdearmid, E. B.
34:171−175. Philip, and N. A. MacLeod. 1963. Intensive beef production. 3.
Performance of Friesian steers given low-fibre diets. Anim.
Majak, W., J. W. Hall, and W. P. McCaughey. 1995. Pasture
Prod. 5:245−249.
management strategies for reducing the risk of legume bloat in
Ramsey, P. B., G. W. Mathison, and L. A. Goonewardene. 1997.
cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1493−1497.
Effect of ruminal degradability and apparent digestibility of
Mangan, J. L. 1988. Nutritional effects of tannins in animal feeds.
barley grain on performance of steers in the feedlot. Can. J.
Nutr. Res. Rev. 1:209−231.
Anim. Sci. (In press).
Martin, S. A., and D. J. Nisbet. 1992. Effect of direct-fed microbials
Reid, C.S.W., R.T.J. Clarke, F.R.M. Cockrem, W. T. Jones, J. T.
on rumen microbial fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1736−1744.
McIntosh, and D. E. Wright. 1975. Physiological and genetical
Mathison, G. W., D. F. Engstrom, and D. D. Macleod. 1991. Effect of
aspects of pasture (legume) bloat. In: I. W. McDonald and
feeding whole and rolled barley to steers in the morning or
A.C.I. Warner (Ed.) Digestion and Metabolism in the
afternoon in diets containing differing proportions of hay and
Ruminant. pp 524−536. University of New England, Armidale,
grain. Anim. Prod. 53:321−330.
N.S.W., Australia.
McAllister, T. A., and K.-J. Cheng. 1996. Microbial strategies in the
Sakauchi, R., and S. Hoshino. 1981a. Microbial characteristics of
ruminal digestion of cereal grains. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 62:
ruminal fluid from feedlot bloat beef cattle. Disorder of
29−36.
ruminants caused by retention of gas in the stomach. J. Gen.
McAllister, T. A., R. C. Phillippe, L. M. Rode, and K.-J. Cheng. 1993.
Appl. Microbiol. 27:145−155.
Effect of the protein matrix on the digestion of cereal grains by
Sakauchi, R., and S. Hoshino. 1981b. Ruminal characteristics in
ruminal microorganisms. J. Anim. Sci. 71:205−212.
feedlot bloat cattle fed high roughage and high concentrate
McAllister, T. A., L. M. Rode, D. J. Major, K.-J. Cheng, and J. G.
diets. Jpn. J. Zootech. Sci. 52: 118−124.
Buchanan-Smith. 1990. Effect of ruminal microbial colonization
Stock, R. A., S. B. Laudert, W. W. Stroup, E. M. Larson, J. C.
on cereal grain digestion. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70:571−579.
Parrott, and R. A. Britton. 1995. Effect of monensin and
McAllister, T. A., Z. Xu, Y. Dong, M. D. Pickard, and K.-J. Cheng.
monensin and tylosin combination on feed intake variation of
1996. Effect of micronized wheat on nutrient digestibility and
feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 73:39−44.
the performance of feedlot lambs and steers. p 8. Proc. Annu.
Swingle, S. 1995. Effect of roughage level and type on intake and
Mtg. Can. Soc. Anim. Sci. July 7−11, 1996, Lethbridge, AB. performance of feedlot cattle. Proc. Symp. Intake by Feedlot
Merchen, N. R., and L. L. Berger. 1985. Effect of salinomycin level Cattle, November 17−19, 1994. p 257. Oklahoma State Univer-
on nutrient digestibility and ruminal characteristics of sheep sity Press. Stillwater.
and feedlot performance of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1338−1346. Theurer, C. B. 1986. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by
Merchen, N. R., J. L. Firkins, and L. L. Berger. 1986. Effect of ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1649−1662.
intake and forage level on ruminal turnover rates, bacterial Varner, L. W., and W. Woods. 1975. Influence of wheat variety upon
protein synthesis and duodenal amino acid flows in sheep. J. in vitro and in vivo lactate levels. J. Anim. Sci. 41:900−905.
Anim. Sci. 62:216−225. Vogel, G. J., and C. Parrott. 1994. Mortality survey in feedyards:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018
 308 CHENG ET AL.
The incidence of death from digestive, respiratory, and other R. Caine. 1991. Effect of ammoniation on the preservation and
causes in feedyards on the Great Plains. Compendium. Febru- feeding value of barley grain for growing-finishing cattle. Can.
ary:227−234. J. Anim. Sci. 71:439−455.
Westley, J. W. 1977. Polyether antibiotics: Versatile carboxylic acid Zinn, R. A., A. Plascencia, and R. Barajas. 1994. Interaction of
ionophores produced by Streptomyces. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 22: forage level and monensin in diets for feedlot cattle on growth
177−184. performance and digestive function. J. Anim. Sci. 72:
Yaremcio, B. J., G. W. Mathison, D. F. Engstrom, L. A. Roth, and W. 2209−2215.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202

by guest
on 29 January 2018