Delivery Method and Supplement Consumption by
Grazing Ruminants: A Review1,2
J.G.P. Bowman3 and B. F. Sowell
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman 59717
ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of supplementation
programs is affected by the ability to reduce intake
variation and to meet target supplement consumption.
A review was made of factors affecting variation in
individual animal consumption of supplement by
grazing cattle and sheep, including supplement type
and feeding method, animal dominance and social
interactions, and forage availability. The effects of
palatability were not included. The proportion of
animals not consuming supplement is increased by
limited trough space, small supplement allowance,
self-fed supplements, neophobia to feed or feed deliv-
Key Words: Supplementation, Feeding Behavior, Cattle, Sheep
Introduction
Supplementation programs rely on the assumption
that animals consume a targeted quantity of supple-
ment. Intake of supplement is usually measured by
dividing the supplement disappearance by the number
of animal·days. This method does not consider varia-
tion in intake by individual animals and the potential
problems if supplement is not consumed at the
targeted amount. If animals consume less than the
target amount, then the formulated nutrient intake is
not received. If animals consume more than the target
amount, supplementation costs are increased, and
there can be potential negative impacts on forage
intake and digestibility. Deviation from the targeted
supplement intake can negatively affect animal
production. In addition, supplementation programs for
grazing ruminants have not always been shown to be
cost-effective, primarily because measures such as
subsequent pregnancy rate, calving interval, or calf or
lamb growth have not been consistently improved
(DelCurto et al., 1990; Miner et al., 1990). Some of
1Presented at a symposium titled “Supplementation Strategies
for Grazing Ruminants” at the ASAS 87th Annu. Mtg., Orlando, FL.
2Montana Agric. Exp. Sta. J. Series No. J-4068.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received January 22, 1996.
Accepted June 14, 1996.
543
ery devices, and group feeding situations. Variation in
individual animal supplement intake is increased by
excessive trough space, limited supplement allowance,
self-fed supplements, feed and feed delivery equip-
ment neophobia, and individual feeding of supple-
ments. Factors influencing the percentage of animals
consuming the target amount of supplement need to
be more clearly identified. There seems to be an
optimum level of feeding competition that reduces
intake variation and improves the proportion of
animals consuming adequate amounts of supplement,
but this optimum varies with the feeding situation.
J. Anim. Sci. 1997. 75:543–550
this inconsistency may be due to variation in supple-
ment intake by individual animals.
The type of supplement offered to cattle and sheep,
the conditions under which it is fed, previous ex-
perience with supplements, social interactions, and
forage quality and availability influence the amount of
supplement consumed by individual animals. Common
measures used to document intake variation include
the proportion of animals that consume no or a low
level of supplement (non-feeders), the CV for in-
dividual animal supplement intake, and the percen-
tage of animals consuming the desired or target
amount of supplement.
Supplement Type and Delivery Methods
To demonstrate the importance of variation in
individual animal supplement consumption, consider
the following example of the calculation of consump-
tion as a percentage of target intake. If 10 kg of
supplement with a target intake of 1 kg·animal−1·d−1
is fed to a group of 10 animals, average supplement
consumption is 1 kg, and it is assumed that the target
consumption is met. However, if individual animal
supplement consumption is measured, and there are
three animals that consume no supplement, and two
animals that consume .5 kg/d, then only 50% of the
animals consumed at least the target amount. Mulhol-
544 BOWMAN AND SOWELL
land and Coombe (1979) used disappearance of
supplement to estimate intake and found this method
resulted in 100% of target intake by grazing wethers
for molasses and molasses-urea liquid supplements,
whereas only 55 and 40% of sheep consumed the
target amount or more of molasses and molasses-urea
liquid supplements, respectively, when individual
supplement consumption was measured.
Trough Space. Changes in trough space per animal
can influence competitiveness and variation in supple-
ment consumption. The proportion of sheep not
consuming oat grain supplement fed once daily in
troughs increased from 0 to 31% as trough space was
decreased from 24 to 4 cm/animal (Arnold and Maller,
1974). However, excess trough space can increase
variation in hand-fed supplement consumption. Wag-
non (1966) observed that with 91 cm of trough space
per cow, less fighting and dominance/submissive
behavior occurred during supplementation than when
180 cm/cow was allowed. According to this author, 91
cm of trough space did not allow cows to fight without
backing away from the trough, and therefore fewer
animals were pushed away from the supplement.
When excessive trough space was allowed, dominant
cows were observed to chase others away from one
side of the trough and to spend more time fighting
than eating.
Supplement Allowance. Larger quantities of supple-
ment provided per animal reduce the variation in
individual animal supplement consumption, and the
proportion of non-feeders. However, greater supple-
ment allowance does not necessarily result in a
greater percentage of animals consuming the target
amount. Foot et al. (1973) found CV of concentrate
supplement intake by ewes fed from troughs averaged
36% when allowance was 100 g/d and declined to 16%
when allowance was 453 g/d. Ducker et al. (1981)
reported that the proportion of grazing ewes not
consuming block supplement was highest when aver-
age flock supplement consumption was low and
decreased as average flock supplement consumption
increased.
Kahn (1994) fed cottonseed meal on the ground to
grazing sheep at either 55 or 110 g/d. When the
allowance was 55 g/d, 30% of the flock consumed less
than 10 g/d supplement, whereas 20% of the flock
offered 110 g/d consumed less than 10 g/d. The
proportion of non-feeders was lower with the higher
supplement allowance, but little difference was ob-
served in the percentage of sheep below target
consumption (57 vs 53% for 55 and 110 g/d al-
lowance).
Kendall et al. (1980b) combined the effects of both
trough space and supplement allowance by offering
grazing ewes concentrate supplement at low (84 g/d),
medium (252 g/d), and high (504 g/d) allowances,
along with restricted (30 cm/animal), adequate (40
cm/animal), or generous (53 cm/animal) trough
space. When supplement allowance was high (504 g/
d ) trough space had little effect on CV of supplement
intake (27, 38, and 34% for 53, 40, and 30 cm/
animal); however, when supplement allowance was
low (84 g/d), trough space had a large effect on
supplement intake CV (46, 58, and 74% for 53, 40,
and 30 cm/animal).
Supplement Form. Liquid and block supplements,
classified as self-fed, can be thought of as delivery
methods that attempt to allow unlimited trough space
per animal, and theoretically should increase an
animal’s opportunity to consume supplement, or
reduce the percentage of non-feeders. With self-fed
supplements, form and(or) formulation can be used
with some success to control supplement allowance.
Traditional dry supplements, being hand-fed, allow
tight control of supplement allowance but, depending
on feeding method, include the effects of trough space
on variation in supplement intake.
When grazing sheep were offered supplements of
oats, chopped hay, or molasses-urea blocks, CV of
individual intake was 144% for blocks, 23% for oats,
and 31% for hay (Lobato and Pearce, 1978; Lobato et
al., 1980b). Eighteen percent of sheep did not
consume any block supplement, but there were no
non-feeders in the groups receiving oats or hay. Seven
commercial flocks of grazing sheep were offered
molasses-urea block supplements by Lobato and
Pearce (1980a). After 3 wk of supplementation, the
proportion of non-feeders within a flock ranged from
21 to 100%. Mean supplement intake by the flocks
ranged from 0 to 31 g/d.
Dove and Freer (1986) offered grazing lambs
sunflower meal or pelleted sunflower meal supple-
ments and found very little difference in the CV of
individual supplement intake of meal (21% CV) or
pelleted supplement (18% CV).
Curtis et al. (1994) evaluated variation in supple-
ment intake of a self-fed lupin seed supplement. When
grazing Merino wethers were given an allowance of
600 g/d lupin seed in a self-feeder, 33% of the sheep
consumed less than 150 g/d, and 8% consumed over
1,200 g/d. Sixty-one percent of the wethers did not
meet target consumption, and the CV of individual
supplement intake was 83%.
Coombe and Mulholland (1983) found the CV of
individual supplement intake by sheep grazing oat
stubble to be 62% for molasses-based blocks, 66% for
molasses-urea liquid supplement in a lick tank, and
86% for molasses delivered in a lick tank. Mean
supplement intake as a percentage of the target
supplement intake was 41% for blocks, 76% for
molasses-urea liquid, and 80% for molasses. Over the
10-wk experimental period, target supplement intake
was never achieved with the block supplement,
whereas target consumption was reached by wk 4 and
5 for molasses and molasses-urea liquid supplements.
The total percentage of non-feeders was 2.5% for
blocks, 22.5% for molasses-urea, and 30% for
molasses. The percentage of non-feeders declined over
 SUPPLEMENT DELIVERY AND INTAKE
the 10-wk experimental period, and all sheep con-
sumed some supplement on all treatments by the end
of the 3rd wk. Although target consumption was not
reached on the block supplement, the percentage of
non-feeders was lower for the block than for the liquid
supplements, especially during the first few weeks of
supplementation.
Ducker et al. (1981) evaluated individual intake of
supplement blocks by over 2,900 grazing ewes from 15
different flocks. Overall, 19% of ewes did not consume
any block, and 36% were classified as low consumers.
The proportion of ewes in a flock that were non-
feeders varied from 0 to 67%. Intake CV also varied
between flocks, ranging from 46 to 231%, with a mean
of 107%.
Grazing heifers offered cubed barley-SBM supple-
ment in troughs had less individual variation in
supplement intake (CV 31%) than when the same
quantity of DM was offered in molasses-urea blocks
(CV 57%; Kendall et al., 1980a). Individual supple-
ment intake CV were higher for grazing steers, but
the trend for increased variation in intake with
molasses-urea blocks (CV 82%) compared with cubed
barley-SBM fed in troughs (CV 55%) was similar.
Kendall et al. (1980b) offered sheep six different
types of molasses-urea blocks. Average CV for in-
dividual intake of the blocks was 53%, but the CV
varied with block type, ranging from 35 to 63%. Intake
variation was greater for the blocks than when
concentrates were fed in troughs. Even when less than
100 g of concentrate supplement was offered per ewe,
more precise supplementation occurred with trough
feeding than with blocks.
Ewes fed hay and housed in an open-fronted
building were offered either barley-SBM pellets or one
of two molasses-urea block supplements (Kendall et
al., 1983). Individual intake CV was 35% for the
pellets, 29% for the high-intake block supplement
(softer consistency), and 50% for the low-intake block
(harder consistency). When the same formulations as
the block supplements were fed in meal form, the CV
of individual supplement intake was lower (average
31%). When grazing ewes were offered seven different
types of molasses-urea block supplements varying in
CP and energy content, the CV for intake ranged from
47 to 96%, with an average intake CV of 68%.
Concentrate supplement fed in troughs to these
grazing ewes was consumed with an average CV of
45% (Kendall et al., 1983). Overall, Kendall et al.
(1983) found that the CV for individual intake was
higher with blocks (56%) than with trough-fed
concentrates (39%) at equal average daily DM
intakes. In this series of studies, a greater proportion
of ewes supplemented with blocks had intakes below
100 g (11% non-feeders) than of ewes receiving
supplement in troughs (4% non-feeders).
Steers given access to medicated molasses blocks
had CV of individual supplement intake of 249%
(Graham et al., 1977). Nine percent were non-feeders,
545
and 27% consumed below the target amount. Nolan et
al. (1974) found that 17% of pregnant heifers grazing
native pasture did not consume measurable quantities
of a molasses-urea liquid supplement.
A group of 200 ewes grazing poor-quality pasture
was given access to a molasses-urea liquid supplement
in a float-lick dispenser, where a wax-impregnated
wooden raft floated on top of the liquid supplement in
an open trough (Nolan et al., 1975). This was
intended to restrict consumption of the liquid supple-
ment. Individual supplement intake measured using
tritiated water indicated that the proportion of non-
feeders was 49%, and the CV for individual supple-
ment intake was 52%.
Mulholland and Coombe (1979) offered crossbred
wethers grazing wheat crop residue access to
molasses-based mineral or mineral-urea block supple-
ments, or to molasses or molasses-urea liquid supple-
ments in roller lick troughs. Mean supplement intake
as a percentage of the target intake was 11% for the
mineral block, 28% for the molasses-urea block, 55%
for the molasses, and 37% for the molasses-urea liquid
supplement. The authors indicated that the mineral
block had a harder consistency than the molasses-urea
block and suggested this as the primary reason for
reduced intakes of the mineral block. A total of five
intake measurements were taken at 3-wk intervals
during the study. After the first 3 wk, 8% of the
animals on the mineral-urea block and 8% of the
animals on the molasses lick supplement were non-
feeders. After 6 wk of the study, all animals consumed
supplement. Coefficient of variation for individual
supplement intake averaged 44% for the mineral
block, 47% for the mineral-urea block, 64% for the
molasses lick, and 58% for the molasses-urea lick.
Holst et al. (1994) offered lupin seed (grain)
supplement to groups of 100 grazing wethers by either
feeding it on the ground once daily or feeding it in a
self-feeder at the same rate (600 g/d). The CV for
individual supplement intake was 83% for the self-
feeder and 47% for hand feeding on the ground. When
supplement was self-fed, 27% of the animals were
classified as non-feeders (consuming less than 100 g/
d), whereas only 10% were non-feeders when the
supplement was hand-fed. The mean intake was a
greater percentage of the target intake when supple-
ment was offered in the self-feeder (84%) than when
fed on the ground (71%).
The percentage of non-feeders and the CV of
individual consumption of block, dry, and liquid
supplements are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Over
the range of animals, environments, and supplement
formulations presented, the percentage of non-feeders
averaged 14.3% for blocks, 15% for dry supplements,
and 23.5% for liquid supplements. The CV of in-
dividual supplement consumption averaged 79% for
block, 41% for dry, and 60% for liquid supplements. A
summarization of studies that made direct compari-
sons between hand-fed (dry) and self-fed (block or
546 BOWMAN AND SOWELL
liquid) supplements resulted in an average of 5% non-
feeders for hand-fed and 19% non-feeders for self-fed
supplements (Lobato et al., 1980b; Kendall et al.,
1983; Holst et al., 1994). The CV of individual
supplement consumption averaged 38% for hand-fed
and 71% for self-fed supplements (Kendall et al.,
1980a; Lobato et al., 1980b; Kendall et al., 1983; Holst
et al., 1994).
Supplement Formulation. Supplement characteris-
tics such as hardness and nitrogen content may
influence variation in consumption. Zhu et al. (1991)
prepared supplement blocks based on liquid condensed
solubles and dried distillers grain with solubles with a
range of hardness indexes. They found that supple-
ment intake by cattle decreased linearly as block
hardness increased. In addition, the CV of supplement
intake increased as block hardness increased, averag-
ing 17% for soft blocks, 23% for medium blocks, and
58% for hard blocks. Kendall et al. (1983) offered two
molasses-urea block supplements varying in hardness
to sheep. Individual intake CV was 29% for the block
with softer consistency and 50% for the block with
harder consistency.
Ducker et al. (1981) offered molasses-urea blocks
with 17, 20.5, and 24.3% CP to grazing sheep. The CV
for individual supplement intake and the percentage
of non-feeders decreased as the CP content of the
blocks increased (CV = 132, 118, and 82%; non-feeders
= 39, 20, and 13% for 17, 20.5, and 24.3% CP,
respectively). Entwistle and Knights (1974) reported
a greater proportion of non-feeders from Merino ewes
grazing semi-arid tropical pastures when offered
molasses alone compared with those offered urea in a
liquid supplement. Lobato and Pearce (1980a)
reported a lower percentage of non-feeders (6.5%)
when sheep were offered molasses-urea blocks with
three different formulations (0, 5, and 10% urea)
simultaneously compared with sheep offered only the
5% urea blocks (12.3%).
Animal-Related Factors
A number of factors influencing livestock accep-
tance of feeds seem to be independent of palatability.
Livestock are sometimes reluctant to sample new
feeds initially but usually overcome this reluctance
with time and experience. Animals fed in groups often
consume less feed but have lower variation in intake
than animals fed individually. Older, more dominant
animals typically consume more supplement than
younger animals, but this may be altered by changes
in supplement delivery methods.
Exposure Time and Previous Experience. Livestock
exposed to new feeds often exhibit neophobia, or a
cautious sampling or rejection of the feed that is not
related to palatability (Launchbaugh, 1995). Neopho-
bia is characterized by a period of low feed intake,
followed by increased consumption leading to a
relatively stable level of intake. The neophobic eating
pattern exhibited by feedlot cattle lasts less than 2 wk
(Hicks et al., 1990). Individual supplement intake
variation usually decreases with time, as animals
progress through the neophobic eating pattern found
with unfamiliar supplements (Lobato and Pearce,
1980a; Coombe and Mulholland, 1983). However,
neophobia may last longer with novel supplements
than with entire diets. Nolan et al. (1975) found that
48% of sheep did not consume any supplement after
exposure to molasses-urea liquid supplement for a
period of 7 d. Lobato and Pearce (1980b) reported
that the percentage of sheep not consuming molasses-
urea blocks decreased from 14% in the 1st wk to 4%
after the 3rd wk of the study. In another experiment,
it took 8 wk of exposure to molasses-urea liquid
supplement before all sheep were consuming supple-
ment (Coombe and Mulholland, 1983).
Chapple and Lynch (1986) summarized that sheep
were not only neophobic to feeds, but also to feed
delivery devices, and as a result, variation in supple-
ment consumption may be caused by unfamiliarity
with the feeding equipment. Chapple et al. (1987)
suggested that sheep exposed to wheat in troughs for
the first time had to overcome the fear of the trough as
well as the wheat. They found it took 2 wk before all
sheep exposed to wheat were consuming some grain
and concluded that sheep learned to eat grain in three
phases. Initially, they had to overcome fear of the
trough, then to overcome fear of the grain, and finally
they had to learn to prehend, chew, and swallow
grain. Holst et al. (1994) found that 16% of Merino
wethers consumed very little lupine seed from trough
feeders initially but readily consumed supplements
from troughs at later periods.
Animals with previous experience consuming a
particular feed accept that feed more readily than
inexperienced animals. Early dietary experience may
increase intake of a novel feed at a later date. Distel et
al. (1994) found that experienced lambs had in-
creased intake of low-quality roughage compared to
inexperienced animals. Lobato et al. (1980a) reported
that exposing sheep to molasses-urea blocks during
the preweaning period had beneficial effects on
supplement intake when blocks were offered post-
weaning. Lambs having previous experience grazing
service berry exhibited greater use of this plant than
inexperienced lambs (Flores et al., 1989). Sheep
without previous experience consuming grain took up
to 2 wk before they were consuming their entire ration
of grain (Juwarini et al., 1981).
Coefficients of variation of supplement intake
usually decrease with increased exposure time to
supplements. Coombe and Mulholland (1983) exa-
mined individual intake of a block, molasses, or
molasses-urea liquid supplements by grazing sheep
during five successive 2-wk periods. During the first 6
wk, the CV of individual supplement intake averaged
80%, and levels of supplement consumption by most
 SUPPLEMENT DELIVERY AND INTAKE
animals were well below target levels. Acceptance of
supplements increased substantially after 6 wk of
exposure, and intake CV decreased to an average of
55%. Animals consuming target amounts of supple-
ment increased from 20% after the first 2 wk to 88%
after 10 wk, and the percentage of non-feeders
declined from 42% in the first period to 0% in the last
period. Entwistle and Knights (1974) evaluated
liquid supplement consumption by grazing ewes over a
5-mo period. The percentage of non-feeders declined
from 29% in the 1st mo to 9% after 9 mo. However,
even after extended exposure times to supplements,
there may still be non-feeders. Lobato et al. (1980b)
reported 18% of Corriedale wethers failed to consume
any molasses-urea block supplement after a 4-wk
exposure period, even though they had consumed some
block supplement in a preceding period.
Individual vs Group Feeding. Although it seems that
excessive competition for supplement increases the
percentage of non-feeders, limit-fed management ap-
547
proaches in feedlots indicate that feed restriction
greatly reduces variation in total feed intake (Zinn,
1995). Phillips and VonTungeln (1995) reported that
DM intake during a 120-d feeding period was not
different for steers fed with Pinpointers (no competi-
tion), Calan gates (little competition), or free-access
Calan gates (moderate competition). However, this
study did not collect intake data from steers being fed
with an open bunk (maximum competition).
Some investigations have examined individual sup-
plement consumption by animals fed in groups or
alone. Webb et al. (1973) found that average in-
dividual intake by 12 dairy cows group-fed a molasses-
based liquid supplement was lower (2.7
kg·animal−1·d−1) than the average individual intake
(3.7 kg·animal−1·d−1) of cows fed the same supple-
ment separately. Individual CV of supplement intake
in this study ranged from 10 to 55%. Lambs fed
sunflower meal supplement individually had CV of
individual intake of 15.3%, whereas those group-fed in

Table 1. Percentage of animals not consuming supplement

Supplement type
Reference Animals Block Dry Liquid Comments
Arnold and Maller (1974) Sheep 0% Oats, 24 cm/head trough space
.5% Oats, 16 cm/head trough space
4% Oats, 12 cm/head trough space
19% Oats, 8 cm/head trough space
31% Oats, 4 cm/head trough space
Curtis et al. (1994) Sheep 33% Lupin seed, self-feeder
Holst et al. (1994) Sheep 27% Lupin seed, self-fed
10% Lupin seed, hand-fed
Kahn (1994) Sheep 30% CSM, 55 g/head allowance
20% CSM, 110 g/head allowance
Ducker et al. (1981) Sheep 19% Molasses-urea
39% 17% CP, molasses-urea
20% 20.5% CP, molasses-urea
13% 24.3% CP, molasses-urea
Lobato and Pearce (1980a) Sheep 50% Molasses-urea, 7 flocks
Lobato and Pearce (1980b) Sheep 6.5% Three formulations offered
12.3% Molasses-5% urea
Graham et al. (1977) Cattle 9% Molasses
Lobato et al. (1980b) Sheep 18% Molasses-urea
0% Oats
Kendall et al. (1983) Sheep 0% Molasses-urea, confinement
6% Molasses-urea, grazing
11% Molasses-urea
4% Barley-SBM pellets
Mulholland and Coombe (1979) Sheep 0% Molasses-mineral
8% Molasses-urea
8% Molasses
0% Molasses-urea
Entwistle and Knights (1974) Sheep 15% Molasses-urea
22% Molasses
Nolan et al. (1975) Sheep 49% Molasses-urea
Coombe and Mulholland (1983) Sheep 3% Mineral-urea
23% Molasses-urea
30% Molasses
Bowman et al. (1995) Cattle 32.5% Molasses-urea
Llewelyn et al. (1978) Cattle 38% Molasses-meat meal
Nolan et al. (1974) Cattle 17% Molasses-urea
548 BOWMAN AND SOWELL

troughs had a CV of 22.6% (Dove and Freer, 1986).
Kendall et al. (1983) compared individual intake of
block supplements by ewes and found mean block
intake increased substantially when blocks were
offered individually compared to a group-fed situation.
However, variation in individual supplement intake
was not different when block supplements were fed
individually (CV = 42%) rather than in a group (CV =
40%), indicating that dominance-subordinate interac-
tions were not the major factor influencing variation
in intake of block supplements (Kendall et al., 1983).
Social Interactions. Social interactions play an
important role in supplement consumption by cattle
and sheep. Dominant animals often consume large
amounts of supplement and prevent other animals
from consuming desired levels. It may be possible to
change dominance patterns by altering feeder design.
Social dominance relationships of range cows and
supplement consumption were investigated by Wag-
non et al. (1966). They reported a strong, stable
linear arrangement of social dominance in a mixed-
breed cow herd. However, a difference in social
dominance among breeds was detected. Angus cows
were more dominant than Shorthorn cows, and both
were more dominant than Hereford cows. A strong
negative association was found between social
dominance and size when comparing Angus to
Hereford breed averages. Intrabreed rank correlations
between dominance and size were positively related.
These findings imply that dominance of Angus cows

Table 2. Coefficient of variation for individual animal intake of supplements

Supplement type
Reference Animals Block Dry Liquid Comments
Curtis et al. (1994) Sheep 83% Lupin seed, self-fed
Dove (1984) Sheep 59% Pelleted rapeseed meal
21% Pelleted sunflower meal
Dove and Freer (1986) Sheep 20.5% Sunflower meal
17.5% Pelleted sunflower meal
Foot et al. (1973) Sheep 36% 100 g/head allowance
16% 453 g/head allowance
Foot and Russel (1973) Sheep 36% Pelleted oats
Holst et al. (1994) Sheep 83% Lupin seed, self-fed
47% Lupin seed, hand-fed
Ducker et al. (1981) Sheep 107% Molasses-urea
132% 17% CP, molasses-urea
118% 20.5% CP, molasses-urea
82% 24.3% CP, molasses-urea
Graham et al. (1977) Cattle 249% Molasses
Zhu et al. (1991) Cattle 17% Molasses-urea, soft block
23% Molasses-urea, medium block
58% Molasses-urea, hard block
Kendall et al. (1980b) Sheep 53% Molasses-urea
44% Concentrate, hand-fed
Kendall et al. (1983) Sheep 29% Soft block, confinement
50% Hard block, confinement
35% Barley-SBM, confinement
68% Molasses-urea, grazing
45% Barley-SBM pellets, grazing
Lobato et al. (1980b) Sheep 144% Molasses-urea
23% Oats
Kendall et al. (1980a) Cattle 57% Molasses-urea, low forage availability
31% Barley-SBM, low forage availability
82% Molasses-urea
55% Barley-SBM
Nolan et al. (1975) Sheep 52% Molasses-urea
Bowman et al. (1995) Cattle 107% Molasses-urea
Langlands and Donald (1978) Cattle 37% Molasses-urea
Llewelyn et al. (1978) Cattle 23% Molasses-meat meal
Webb et al. (1973) Cattle 46% Molasses-ammonium acetate
Coombe and Mulholland (1983) Sheep 62% Mineral-urea
66% Molasses-urea
86% Molasses
Mulholland and Coombe (1979) Sheep 44% Molasses-mineral
47% Molasses-urea
64% Molasses
58% Molasses-urea
 SUPPLEMENT DELIVERY AND INTAKE
over Hereford cows was not due to difference in size.
Bowman et al. (1995) found that 2-yr-old cows
consumed less liquid supplement from a conventional
lick-tank than 3-yr-old cows grazing native rangelands
in November. These findings were verified by Sowell
et al. (1995), who reported total time spent consum-
ing supplement was lower for the 2-yr-old than for the
3-yr-old cows. Both groups of cows were inexperienced
with liquid supplements.
Reports that have examined dominance factors
associated with supplement intake of sheep have not
been as conclusive. Arnold and Maller (1974)
reported that competition for oat grain between
grazing sheep was not related to body size but was due
to individual sheep disposition. They reported that
1-yr-old and 7-yr-old sheep were least competitive, and
Merinos were the least competitive of seven breeds of
wethers. Lobato and Beilharz (1979) found that
intake of molasses blocks by Corriedale wethers
correlated to live weight, but not to dominance value.
They also concluded that intake was dependent on
individual preference of particular animals because
the block was not a limiting resource. Foot et al.
(1973) reported that younger sheep experienced no
disadvantage in obtaining supplement compared to
older ewes when the two age groups were together in
penned situations.
Inexperienced sheep commonly increase supple-
ment intake in the presence of more experienced
sheep. Lynch et al. (1983) exposed Merino lambs to
wheat at different ages, and for different durations
with and without their mothers. Lambs exposed to
wheat for the first time in the presence of their
mothers ate more wheat during postweaning tests
than lambs exposed to wheat without their mothers.
They further concluded that length of exposure to
wheat was less important than maternal influences.
Chapple and Lynch (1986) summarized that sheep
learned to eat wheat most rapidly from experienced
mothers or other experienced sheep. Lobato and
Pearce (1980b) attempted to influence percentage of
non-feeders and intake of molasses-urea blocks by
placing experienced sheep in pens with the inex-
perienced test animals. However, they were not able to
alter feeding behavior of the inexperienced sheep,
suggesting some behavioral traits cannot be modified
by management.
Bowman et al. (1995) tested the influence of two
different liquid supplement tanks on supplement
intake by 2- and 3-yr-old cows. Average supplement
intake using a conventional lick-wheel feeder was 72%
less by 2-yr-old than by 3-yr-old cows. There were no
differences in supplement intake between 2- and
3-yr-old cows using a computer-controlled lick-tank
that limited the amount of supplement available at
any one time. Therefore, some social interactions that
contribute to differences in supplement intake among
age groups can be altered by feeder design.
549
Forage Factors
Wagnon (1966) found that the percentage of non-
feeders of concentrate supplements in a mixed-age
herd of beef cattle was 2.4% over a 4-yr period.
However, the percentage of non-feeders ranged from
0% in February to 8.5% in July and was positively
related to forage availability.
Ducker et al. (1981) reported that percentage of
non-feeders among ewes supplemented with molasses-
urea blocks increased as the grazing area per ewe
increased. The relationship they found was: % non-
feeders = 22.7 (ha/ewe) + 3.2. As the grazing area
increased from .5 to 1.0 to 1.5 ha/ewe, the percentage
of non-feeders increased from 15 to 26 to 37%.
Dove (1984) trough-fed either pelleted rapeseed
meal or pelleted sunflower meal to Merino sheep
grazing wheat stubble at two stocking rates (10
animals/ha or 20 animals/ha). The CV for individual
supplement intake was 59% for rapeseed meal, and
21% for sunflower meal. Although supplements were
offered at the same allowance, mean consumption of
rapeseed meal was consistently less than that of
sunflower meal. Stocking rate did not affect the CV for
supplement intake (average 40%); however, both
stocking rate treatments in this study had less than
17 kg/ha green forage available. Variation in in-
dividual intake of supplements increases with greater
forage availability, possibly due to less competition for
a limited nutrient supply.
Implications
A great deal of variation exists in individual animal
consumption of supplements. This variation, and the
relatively large proportion of non-feeders found under
some circumstances, could explain the contradictory
results seen in animal response to supplementation.
High levels of competition for supplement, as when
trough space is limited, generally increases the
proportion of non-feeders, whereas low levels of
competition, as with self-fed supplements, generally
increases variation in individual supplement intake.
There may be an optimum level of competition that
reduces intake variation and allows more animals to
meet target supplement consumption. Supplement
delivery method has the potential to alter competition
and possibly to improve the effectiveness of supple-
ment programs.
Literature Cited
Arnold, G. W., and R. A. Maller. 1974. Some aspects of competition
between sheep for supplementary feed. Anim. Prod. 19:309.
Bowman, J.G.P., B. F. Sowell, and D. L. Boss. 1995. Effect of liquid
supplement delivery method on forage intake and digestibility
by cows on native range. Proc. West. Sect. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci.
46:391.
550 BOWMAN AND SOWELL
Chapple, R. S., and J. J. Lynch. 1986. Behavioural factors modifying
acceptance of supplementary foods by sheep. Res. Dev. Agric. 3:
113.
Chapple, R. S., M. Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, and J. J. Lynch. 1987.
The learning behavior of sheep when introduced to wheat. I.
wheat acceptance by sheep and the effect of trough familiarity.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18:157.
Coombe, J. B., and J. G. Mulholland. 1983. Utilization of urea and
molasses supplements by sheep grazing oat stubble. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 34:767.
Curtis, K.M.S., P. J. Holst, and P. J. Murray. 1994. Measuring
supplement intake in the field using Ytterbium. Aust. J. Exp.
Agric. 34:339.
DelCurto, T., R. C. Cochran, T. G. Nagaraja, L. R. Corah, A. A.
Beharka, and E. S. Vanzant. 1990. Comparison of soybean
meal/sorghum grain, alfalfa hay and dehydrated alfalfa pellets
as supplemental protein sources for beef cattle consuming dor-
mant tallgrass-prairie forage. J. Anim. Sci. 68:2901.
Distel, R. A., J. J. Villalba, and H. E. Laborde. 1994. Effects of early
experience on voluntary intake of low-quality roughage by
sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1191.
Dove, H. 1984. Gypsum labelled with tritiated water as a marker for
estimating supplement intake by individual sheep fed in
groups. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 24:484.
Dove, H., and M. Freer. 1986. The use of tritiated gypsum for
estimating individual intakes of pelleted or unpelleted supple-
ment by lambs fed individually or in groups. Aust. J. Exp.
Agric. 26:19.
Ducker, M. J., P. T. Kendall, R. G. Hemingway, and T. H. McClel-
land. 1981. An evaluation of feedblocks as a means of providing
supplementary nutrients to ewes grazing upland/hill pastures.
Anim. Prod. 33:51.
Entwistle, K. W., and G. Knights. 1974. The use of urea-molasses
supplements for sheep grazing semi-arid tropical pastures.
Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 14:17.
Flores, E. R., F. D. Provenza, and D. F. Balph. 1989. Role of
experience in the development of foraging skills of lambs
browsing the shrub serviceberry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:
271.
Foot, J. Z., and A.J.F. Russel. 1973. Some nutritional implications of
group-feeding hill sheep. Anim. Prod. 16:293.
Foot, J. Z., A.J.F. Russel, T. J. Maxwell, and P. Morris. 1973.
Variation in intake among group-fed pregnant Scottish Black-
face ewes given restricted amount of food. Anim. Prod. 17:169.
Graham, C. A., C. Pern, and K. L. Linehan. 1977. Individual daily
consumption of a medicated bloat block. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
Anim. Husb. 17:562.
Hicks, R. B., F. N. Owens, D. R. Gill, J. W. Oltjen, and R. P. Lake.
1990. Dry matter intake by feedlot beef steers: Influence of
initial weight, time on feed and season of year received in yard.
J. Anim. Sci. 68:254.
Holst, P. J., K.M.S. Curtis, and D. G. Hall. 1994. Methods of feeding
grain supplements and measuring their intake by adult sheep.
Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 34:345.
Juwarini, E., B. Howard, B. D. Siebert, J. J. Lynch, and R. L. Elwin.
1981. Variation in the wheat intake of individual sheep meas-
ured by use of labelled grain: Behavioural influences. Aust. J.
Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 21:395.
Kahn, L. P. 1994. The use of lithium chloride for estimating supple-
ment intake in grazing sheep: Estimates of heritability and
repeatability. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 45:1731.
Kendall, P. T., M. J. Ducker, and R. G. Hemingway. 1980a. In-
dividual intake variation by cattle given self-help feed blocks or
cubed concentrate fed in troughs. Anim. Prod. 30:485.
Kendall, P. T., M. J. Ducker, and R. G. Hemingway. 1983. Individual
intake variation in ewes given feedblock or trough supplements
indoors or at winter grazing. Anim. Prod. 36:7.
Kendall, P. T., R. G. Hemingway, and M. J. Ducker. 1980b. Varia-
tion in probable feed intake of ewes given concentrates with
varying trough space allowance or self-help feedblocks. Proc.
Nutr. Soc. 30:16A.
Langlands, J. P., and G. E. Donald. 1978. The nutrition of
ruminants grazing native and improved pastures. II. Responses
of grazing cattle to molasses and urea supplementation. Aust.
J. Agric. Res. 29:875.
Launchbaugh, K. L. 1995. Effects of neophobia and aversions on
feed intake: Why feedlot cattle sometimes refuse to eat nutri-
tious feed. In: Symposium: Intake by Feedlot Cattle. Okla.
Agric. Exp. Sta. P-942. p 36.
Llewelyn, D., T. J. Kempton, and J. V. Nolan. 1978. Liveweight
response in heifers fed a meatmeal-molasses supplement. Proc.
Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 12:174.
Lobato, J. F., and G. R. Pearce. 1978. Variability in the intake of
supplements by grazing sheep. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 12:
164.
Lobato, J.F.P., and R. G. Beilharz. 1979. Relation of social
dominance and body size to intake of supplements in grazing
sheep. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5:233.
Lobato, J.F.P., and G. R. Pearce. 1980a. Responses to molasses-urea
blocks of grazing sheep and sheep in yards. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
Anim. Husb. 20:417.
Lobato, J.F.P., and G. R. Pearce. 1980b. Effects of some manage-
ment procedures on the responses of sheep to molasses-urea
blocks. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 20:422.
Lobato, J.F.P., G. R. Pearce, and R. G. Beilharz. 1980a. Effect of
early familiarization with dietary supplements on the subse-
quent ingestion of molasses-urea blocks by sheep. Appl. Anim.
Ethol. 6:149.
Lobato, J.F.P., G. R. Pearce, and D. E. Tribe. 1980b. Measurement of
the variability in intake by sheep of oat grain, hay and
molasses-urea blocks using chromic oxide as a marker. Aust. J.
Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 20:413.
Lynch, J. J., R. G. Keogh, R. L. Elwin, G. C. Green, and B. E.
Mottershead. 1983. Effects of early experience on the post-
weaning acceptance of whole grain wheat by fine-wool Merino
lambs. Anim. Prod. 36:175.
Miner, J. L., M. K. Petersen, K. M. Havstad, M. J. McInerney, and
R. A. Bellows. 1990. The effects of ruminal escape protein or fat
on nutritional status of pregnant winter grazing beef cows. J.
Anim. Sci. 68:1743.
Mulholland, J. G., and J. B. Coombe. 1979. Supplementation of
sheep grazing wheat stubble with urea, molasses and minerals:
Quality of diet, intake of supplements and animal response.
Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 19:23.
Nolan, J. V., F. M. Ball, R. M. Murray, B. W. Norton, and R. A.
Leng. 1974. Evaluation of a urea-molasses supplement for graz-
ing cattle. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 10:91.
Nolan, J. V., B. W. Norton, R. M. Murray, F. M. Ball, F. B. Roseby,
W. Rohan-Jones, M. K. Hill, and R. A. Leng. 1975. Body weight
and wool production in grazing sheep given access to a supple-
ment of urea and molasses: Intake of supplement/response
relationships. J. Agric. Sci., 84:39.
Phillips, W. A., and D. L. VonTungeln. 1995. Effect of feeding system
on dry matter intake, gain and carcass characteristics of beef
steers. In: Symposium: Intake by Feedlot Cattle. Okla. Agric.
Exp. Sta. P-942. p 5.
Sowell, B. F., J.G.P. Bowman, D. L. Boss, and H. W. Sherwood.
1995. Feeding behavior of range cows receiving liquid supple-
ments. Proc. West. Sect. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 46:388.
Wagnon, K. A. 1966. Social dominance in range cows and its effect
on supplemental feeding. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. # 819. pp
1−32.
Wagnon, K. A., R. G. Loy, W. C. Rollins, and F. D. Carroll. 1966.
Social dominance in a herd of Angus, Hereford, and Shorthorn
cows. Anim. Behav. 14:474.
Webb, D. W., E. E. Bartley, and R. M. Meyer. 1973. Feeding ammo-
nium acetate in molasses liquid supplement to lactating dairy
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 56:1102.
Zhu, X., C. W. Deyoe, K. C. Behnke, and P. A. Seib. 1991. Poured
feed blocks using distillery by-products as supplements for
ruminants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 54:535.
Zinn, R. A. 1995. Effects of levels and patterns of intake on digestive
function in feedlot steers. In: Symposium: Intake by Feedlot
Cattle. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. P-942. p 167.