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
practices and the use of various feed additives have
reduced, but not eliminated, the occurrence of bloat in
feedlot cattle. Feedlot bloat reduces the profitability of
production by compromising animal performance and
more directly by causing fatalities. In feedlots, bloat is
associated with the ingestion of large amounts of
rapidly fermented cereal grain and destabilization of
the microbial populations of the rumen. An abundance
of rapidly fermented carbohydrate allows acid-tolerant
bacteria (e.g., Streptococcus bovis and Lactobacillus
spp.) to proliferate and produce excessive quantities of
fermentation acids. As a result, ruminal pH becomes
exceedingly low, and this impairs rumen motility.
Key Words: Bloat, Feedlots, Cattle, Viscosity, Rumen
1998 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Cereal grain is the principal source of energy in
diets of feedlot cattle in North America; finishing diets
typically consist of 90% grain and 10% forage (dry
matter basis). Several factors, including the greater
energy density and ease of transport, storage, and
blending of grains, relative to forages, have led to
adoption of grain-based finishing diets as opposed to
less energy-dense forage diets. Nutritional value is
more predictable in grain than in forages, enabling
producers to finish cattle in a consistent and uniform
manner. Finally, consumer preference (e.g., degree of
marbling and white fat) for grain-fed beef as opposed
to forage-fed beef encourages the use of grain in
1Presented at a symposium titled “Bud Britton Memorial
Symposium: Metabolic Disorders of Feedlot Cattle”, July 1996,
following the ASAS 88th Annu. Mtg., Rapid City, SD.
2Contribution number 3879683.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed: telephone: 403/
327−4561; fax: 403/382−3156.
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
Further, the excessive production of mucopolysaccha-
ride or “slime” increases the viscosity of ruminal fluid
and stabilizes the foam implicated in frothy feedlot
bloat. Although protocols have been developed to treat
feedlot bloat, the most profitable approach is to use
management strategies to reduce its likelihood.
Amount of roughage, grain processing techniques,
selection of cereal grain (e.g., corn, barley, and
wheat), dietary adaptation periods, and various addi-
tives (e.g., ionophores) can influence the occurrence of
bloat in feedlot cattle. Successful management of these
factors depends on a thorough understanding of the
behavioral, dietary, and microbial events that precipi-
tate bloat in feedlot cattle.
J. Anim. Sci. 1998. 76:299–308
finishing diets (Berry et al., 1988).
Cattle evolved consuming forage from temperate
grasslands; thus, in evolutionary terms, cereal grains
are a novel food source. The rumen has a capacity
sufficient to accommodate a large quantity of bulky
forage normally consumed during a grazing bout.
Particle size reduction and digestion of forage occurs
over a relatively long period of time (i.e., 12 to 24 h )
and is accomplished by the combined processes of
microbial fermentation and rumination. With the
introduction of cereal grain into the diet, principal
substrates for microbial fermentation change from
slowly digested plant cell wall components (e.g.,
cellulose and hemicellulose) to rapidly digested
starch. Abundance of available energy in the rumen
and accumulation of rapidly produced fermentation
acids and bacterial mucopolysaccharides can disrupt
normal rumen function and promote formation of
stable foam indicative of frothy bloat. Optimizing
utilization of cereal grains while maintaining normal
rumen function and animal health continues to be one
of the major challenges faced by the feedlot industry.
 300
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
the financial losses incurred with culling and treat-
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
to reduce bloat in feedlot cattle, this disorder still
represents a major economic loss to producers.
Etiology of Feedlot Bloat
Bloat is a ruminal dysfunction that results from the
accumulation of excessive gas within the rumen. Bloat
in feedlot cattle is caused by several factors and
interactions involving management, feed, animal, and
microbial factors (Figure 1). Gases are produced in
the rumen as normal by-products of microbial fermen-
tation at a rate of .2 (in feed-deprived animals) to 2.0
L/min (Clarke and Reid, 1974). Normally, the
majority of fermentation gases are eliminated from
the rumen via eructation. Eructation is a complex
series of muscular contractions in which gas is forced
from the rumen through the cardia and is released
through the esophagus. The eructation sequence is
initiated by the presence of free gas in the dorsal sac
of the rumen. Thus, if ruminal conditions prevent
normal contractions from occurring in the reticulo-
rumen or if movement of free gas through the cardia
or esophagus is obstructed, bloat occurs (Clarke and
Reid, 1974). As gas accumulates, the expanding
rumen exerts pressure on the diaphragm and lungs,
impairs respiration, and ultimately leads to death
(Bartley et al., 1975).
Bloat can be classified into two types: free-gas bloat
and frothy bloat. Free-gas bloat most often is as-
sociated with obstruction of the esophagus or cardia.
Incompletely processed or chewed feeds such as
potatoes, sugar beets, and turnips can become lodged
in the esophagus and prevent passage of gas from the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202
by guest
on 29 January 2018
CHENG ET AL.
Figure 1. Animal, dietary, and microbial factors
involved in the development of feedlot bloat.
rumen. Cattle with severe chronic pneumonia (Garry,
1990) or hardware disease also may develop free-gas
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
compressing or distorting the esophagus, disturbing
the reticular wall, and altering sensory function of the
rumen wall. Impaired rumen motility as a result of
the rapid onset of acidosis or hypocalcemia also may
induce free-gas bloat. This form of bloat usually can be
relieved quite easily by removal of the esophageal
obstruction or through intubation of the rumen.
However, cattle that exhibit chronic free-gas bloat
often have incurred permanent impairment of the
eructation reflex and should be culled for slaughter.
Although its rapid onset and high mortality rate
give free-gas bloat more notoriety than frothy bloat,
90% of feedlot bloat cases are of the frothy type
(Howarth et al., 1991). Normally, gas in the rumen
forms bubbles that rise through the rumen contents
and coalesce to form a dorsal gas pocket in the rumen.
Ruminal contents typically are stratified; partially
digested feed particles are readily discernible in the
digesta of animals in which gas has separated
normally from fluid and feed particles (Figure 2A). In
contrast, ruminal contents in animals suffering from
frothy bloat form a dispersion of gas, liquid, and feed
particles (Figure 2B). With frothy bloat on pasture,
plant components apparently are primarily responsi-
ble for foam production (Mangan, 1988; Majak et al.,
1995); with feedlot bloat, the foam-producing agents
seem to be chiefly of microbial origin (Cheng and
Costerton, 1975; Cheng et al., 1976). Not all animals
with frothy rumen contents will bloat, but the foam in
animals that do bloat is extremely persistent and
 BLOAT IN FEEDLOT CATTLE
Figure 2. (A) Normal and (B) frothy rumen contents
from steers fed a barley-based finishing diet. (C)
Expulsion of rumen contents from a bloated steer fed a
barley-based finishing phase diet. Accumulation of
pressure within the rumen was such (> 70 mm Hg;
Lippke et al., 1972) that the majority of rumen contents
were expelled when the ruminal cannula was opened.
often occupies the entire lumen of the reticulo-rumen.
When the cardia is covered with foam, eructation is
inhibited (Dougherty, 1956), and the accumulation of
gas in the rumen can increase intraruminal pressures
to values over 70 mm Hg or 9.34 kPa (Lippke et al.,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202
by guest
on 29 January 2018
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).
Increased ruminal populations of S. bovis have been
observed in bloated animals (Mishra, 1965; Bartley et
al., 1983), but the predominance of this bacterium in
the rumen is not a prerequisite for development of
bloat (Hironaka et al., 1973). Although bloat often is
associated with acidosis, it can occur when the pH of
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-
ous occurrence of both digestive diseases.
Bloat research has revealed a substantial diversity
in the numbers and kinds of bacteria associated with
feedlot bloat (Bryant et al., 1961; Sakauchi and
Hoshino, 1981a); many of these species store carbohy-
 302
drates intracellularly when high-energy diets are fed.
Release of such material upon bacterial cell lysis
contributes to an increased viscosity of ruminal fluid
in addition to the extracellular slime. The frothy
nature of ruminal contents makes isolation of bacteria
from bloated animals particularly difficult; recent
development of bacterial probes based on small
subunit ribosomal RNA sequences (Odelson et al.,
1993; Forster and Gong, 1995) may expedite elucida-
tion of the bacterial population associated with feedlot
bloat.
Ruminal protozoal populations of bloated and non-
bloated feedlot cattle differ only in minor ways
(Sakauchi and Hoshino 1981a,b), and involvement of
protozoa in feedlot bloat remains unclear. Because
protozoa readily engulf ruminal bacteria and starch
granules (Bonhomme, 1990), they may reduce the
formation of bacterial slime in the rumen and retard
acid production.
Animal Physiology and Feedlot Bloat
Animal variability also plays a role in the develop-
ment of bloat; individual animals vary in susceptibil-
ity. Anatomical differences in the rumen, eructation
proficiency, salivary production, epinephrine secretion
levels, and appetite all may influence the development
of bloat (Carruthers et al., 1988; B. Berg, T. A.
McAllister, and K.-J. Cheng, unpublished data).
Cattle with a history of feedlot bloat tend to produce
more foam in the rumen and have a slower fractional
outflow rate of fluid from the rumen than do non-
bloating animals (Okine et al., 1989). Presumably,
the slower outflow of fluid promotes the accumulation
of froth and gas in the rumen and increases the
likelihood of bloat. Although selection of breeds of
cattle resistant to pasture bloat has been attempted
(Reid et al., 1975), similar research efforts have not
been undertaken to overcome feedlot bloat. However,
the incidence of feedlot bloat is higher in Holstein
cattle than in beef cattle; perhaps this is attributable
to the greater feed intake or an increased time to
finish (Vogel and Parrott, 1994). In contrast, Brah-
man cattle may be more likely to develop acidosis than
Hereford or Angus cattle (Hentges, 1970 [cited by
Perry, 1995]); hence, breed may affect the propensity
to develop feedlot bloat. Unfortunately, no easy
method is available to determine an animal’s relative
vulnerability to bloat until after bloat has occurred.
Prevention of Feedlot Bloat
Although regimens have been developed to treat
feedlot bloat, it is far more profitable to use manage-
ment strategies to reduce its incidence. Amount of
roughage, grain processing techniques, selection of
cereal grain (e.g., corn, barley, and wheat), various
feed additives (e.g., ionophores), and dietary adapta-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202
by guest
on 29 January 2018
CHENG ET AL.
tion schedules can help reduce the likelihood of bloat
in feedlot cattle.
Regulation of Cereal Grain Digestion
Type of Cereal Grain. Cereal grains differ in their
rates of ruminal fermentation. Rate and extent of
fermentation of wheat are greater than those of
barley, sorghum, or corn (McAllister et al., 1990).
Between 80 and 90% of the starch in barley and wheat
is digested within the rumen; this value ranges from
55 to 70% for sorghum and corn (Nocek and Tam-
minga, 1991). The protein matrix surrounding the
starch granules within the endosperm is primarily
responsible for these differences in ruminal digestion
among cereal grains (Kotarski et al., 1992; McAllister
et al., 1993). To our knowledge, no experiments have
been conducted to determine whether there is a
difference in the incidence of bloat among cereal
grains, but there is an industry perception that bloat
occurs most frequently in feedlot cattle fed wheat-
based diets. The incidence of acidosis in feedlot cattle
also is higher with wheat than with other cereal
grains (Elam, 1976), so an increased frequency of
acidotic-related bloat may account for this perception.
Differences in ruminal fermentation also have been
found among barley and wheat varieties (Boss and
Bowman, 1996; T. A. McAllister and K.-J. Cheng,
unpublished data), but these differences are less
dramatic than those observed among varieties of
sorghum and corn. Varner and Woods (1975) ob-
served the incidence of digestive disturbances among
ruminants to differ with the wheat variety fed, and
perhaps similar differences exist among other cereal
grains. Selection of cereal grain varieties for reduced
bloat is not likely to prove feasible, because feed
grains usually are blends of varieties dictated by cost
and availability. Environmental variation with year
and location also may affect the propensity of a grain
to cause feedlot bloat.
Grain Processing. Processing grain increases the
rate and extent of ruminal starch digestion and
reduces the amount of starch available for digestion in
the small intestine. Typically, grains are ground,
cracked, flaked, or steam-rolled to disrupt the pericarp
and provide microorganisms access to the nutrient-
rich components of the endosperm. As particle size
becomes smaller, more starch is exposed to digestion
by microbial enzymes; the accelerated production of
organic acids and mucopolysaccharides leads to a
decline in pH and an increase in the viscosity of
ruminal fluid (Figure 5; Cheng and Hironaka, 1973;
Hironaka et al., 1973). Minimal processing of barley
(i.e., merely cracking the pericarp or hull) has proven
effective for slowing ruminal digestion (McAllister
and Cheng, 1996). Tempering barley to 15% moisture
before rolling reduces the shattering of cereal kernels
and production of fine particles. The optimal level for
grain processing should maintain an acceptable level
 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
Figure 4. (Top panel) Development of viscosity in
cultures of Streptococcus bovis grown in the presence of
.5, 3, and 6% sucrose. (Bottom panel) Reduction in S.
bovis culture viscosity as a result of digestion of slime
polysaccharides by added dextranase (1,6-a-glucan-
6-glucanohydrolase EC 3.2.1.11; .05 unit/mL). Adapted
from Cheng et al., 1976.
tion. Occasionally, bloat in feedlot cattle is greater
when the cattle are fed whole barley compared to
rolled barley (Mathison et al., 1991; Yaremcio et al.,
1991); hence, factors other than the nature of the
grain must have precipitated bloat. Bloat is influenced
by myriad variables (Figure 1), which makes it
impossible to develop a single management practice
for bloat control. Even with grain processing, factors
such as variety, bushel weight, and roller wear can
alter particle size and influence the likelihood of bloat.
Extensive processing methods, such as steam flak-
ing, popping, and micronizing, involve the application
of heat to the cereal grain and gelatinization of starch
(Evers and Stevens, 1985). Beyond grinding, gelatini-
zation increases the accessibility of starch to microbial
enzymes so that the rate of ruminal starch digestion of
steam-flaked sorghum is approximately three times
greater than that of ground sorghum (Theurer, 1986).
In contrast, dry heat can form complexes between
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202
by guest
on 29 January 2018
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).
Nonetheless, inclusion of forage in diets containing
more rapidly fermentable cereal grains, such as barley
or wheat, may sustain or improve animal performance
by reducing digestive disturbances (Kreikemeier et
al., 1990). In general, the risk of acidosis increases as
the amount of forage in a high-grain feedlot diet is
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
in the development of digestive upset. Swingle (1995)
maintains that better characterization of critical
ruminal pH values, of subsequent effects of low
ruminal pH on animal performance, and of amount(s)
of forage required to counteract these adverse changes
is essential for defining the optimum level of forage in
finishing diets. He advocates development of a “rough-
age equivalency” system that would permit more
effective and predictable use of different roughage
sources in feedlot diets.
Adaptation and Limit Feeding. Bloat frequently
occurs during the transition from forage to high-
concentrate diets (Ramsey et al., 1997). Different
microbial species predominate in the ruminal
ecosystem during digestion of forage than during
digestion of cereal grains (Dehority and Orpin, 1988).
Thus, if bloat is to be avoided, time must be allowed
(14 to 21 d ) for the microbial populations to adjust to
and stabilize after the dramatic changes in substrate
 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
either monensin or lasalocid (Merchen and Berger,
1985; Nagaraja et al., 1987). Direct comparisons have
demonstrated that S. bovis is more sensitive in vitro to
salinomycin than to monensin (Leblanc et al., 1993).
Although the reason for this specificity is unclear, it
may be related to differences in solubility between
these ionophores. Whereas salinomycin and monensin
prevent bloat (Hoshino et al., 1987; Branine and
Galyean, 1990), some studies indicate that monensin
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
intake of rapidly fermented carbohydrate may par-
tially explain the difference in bloat incidence among
animals receiving these two ionophores. Monensin
also has been shown to reduce daily variation in feed
intake. This change in feeding behavior also may
contribute to the reduction in bloat in ionophore-
supplemented feedlot cattle (Stock et al., 1995).
Bloat Preventatives. Most bloat preventatives were
developed to control pasture bloat; consequently, few
products have been tested in the feedlot. Pluronics are
special low-foam detergents that reduce the surface
tension of foam and reduce foam stability in the
rumen. Complete elimination of pasture bloat has
been achieved with poloxalene (Bloat Guard; Majak
et al., 1995); occurrence of feedlot bloat is reduced but
Figure 5. (Top panel) Development of viscosity in
cell-free ruminal fluid in cows fed a coarse (geometric
mean particle size, 519 mm) or fine (geometric mean
particle size, 344 mm) particle size barley-based diet.
Cows were gradually adapted to the concentrate diet
between d 0 and 9 and were fed an all-concentrate diet
between d 9 and 18. (Bottom panel) Post-feeding
changes in the pH of cell-free ruminal fluid from cows
fed hay or all-concentrate (coarse or fine particle size)
diets. Adapted from Cheng and Hironaka, 1973.
not eliminated by this preparation (Clarke and Reid,
1974). Laundry detergent also has been advocated as
a bloat preventative, but comparative studies indicate
that it is ineffective (Hall and Majak, 1992).
A commercial mineral mix (Silent Herder) has
been promoted as a bloat preventative (Hart, 1993); it
was only partially effective at preventing pasture
bloat (Hall et al., 1994). Addition of 4% salt to feedlot
diets has been shown to reduce bloat, possibly by
reducing feed intake and increasing the rate of
passage of fluid through the rumen (Cheng et al.,
1979). Inclusion of mineral oil at 4 to 8% of the diet
reduced the incidence of bloat in feedlot cattle, but
animal fat had no effect and soybean oil increased the
incidence of bloat (Elam and Davis, 1962). Unfor-
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
effective for treatment than for prevention. Sup-
plemental fat slightly reduces ruminal starch diges-
tion rate (Gramlich et al., 1993); if achieved without
compromising the extent of digestion, this could
reduce the incidence of acidosis in feedlot cattle and
may curtail acidosis-related feedlot bloat. Live yeast
cultures in diets promote lactate utilization in the
rumen (Martin and Nisbet, 1992); they reduced the
incidence of acidosis in finishing steers fed a diet high
in barley (Mir and Mir, 1994).
Blocare R 4511 is a particularly promising bloat
preventative that has been used to prevent pasture
bloat in New Zealand for more than 20 yr. This
product is a combination of pluronic detergents with
an additional anti-bloat agent, alcohol ethoxylate.
Preliminary tests with this product have shown that,
administered in water, it is 100% effective at control-
ing pasture bloat at a cost of 3 cents·animal−1·d−1 (W.
Majak, unpublished data). Effectiveness of this
product for control of bloat in the feedlot remains
unknown.
Implications
Proper diet and bunk management are key factors
in the prevention of bloat in the feedlot. Whereas
various additives can be used to reduce the likelihood
of bloat, they are of little use if the feed is not properly
processed or sufficient time for adaptation of microbial
populations is not allowed. With public pressure to
reduce the use of antibiotics increasing and expenses
associated with obtaining regulatory approval of feed
additives becoming prohibitive, producers must rely
increasingly on innovative feeding strategies to pre-
vent bloat in feedlot cattle.
Literature Cited
Allison, M. J., I. M. Robinson, R. W. Dougherty, and J. A. Bucklin.
1975. Grain overload in cattle and sheep: Changes in microbial
populations in the cecum and rumen. Am. J. Vet Res. 36:
181−185.
Bartle, S. J., R. L. Preston, and M. F. Miller. 1994. Dietary energy
source and density: Effects of roughage source, roughage
equivalent, tallow level, and steer type on feedlot performance
and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1943−1953.
Bartley, E. E., R. M. Meyer, and L. R. Fina. 1975. Feedlot or grain
bloat. In: I. W. McDonald and A.C.I. Warner (Ed.) Digestion
and Metabolism in the Ruminant. pp 551−562. The University
of New England Publishing Unit. Armidale, Australia.
Bartley, E. E., T. G. Nagaraja, E. S. Pressman, A. D. Dayton, M. P.
Katz, and L. R. Fina. 1983. Effects of lasalocid or monensin on
legume or grain (feedlot) bloat. J. Anim. Sci. 56:1400−1406.
Beauchemin, K. A. 1991. Ingestion and mastication of feed by dairy
cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 7:439−463.
Bedford, M. R. 1996. Factors influencing the efficiency of enzymes
used in wheat based broiler diets. In: 17th Western Nutrition
Conference, Technical Symposium. pp 9−16. Edmonton, AB,
Canada.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202
by guest
on 29 January 2018
Berry, B. W., K. F. Leddy, J. Bond, T. S. Rumsey, and A. C.
Hammond. 1988. Effects of silage diets and electrical stimula-
tion on the palatability, cooking and pH characteristics of beef
loin steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 66:892−900.
Bonhomme, A. 1990. Rumen ciliates: Their metabolism and relation-
ships with bacteria and their hosts. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.
30:203−266.
Boss, D. L., and J.G.P. Bowman. 1996. Barley varieties for finishing
steers: I. Feedlot performance, in vivo diet digestion, and car-
cass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1967−1972.
Branine, M. E., and M. L. Galyean. 1990. Influence of grain and
monensin supplementation on ruminal fermentation, intake,
digesta kinetics and incidence and severity of frothy bloat in
steers grazing winter wheat pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 68:
1139−1150.
Bryant, M. P., I. M. Robinson, and I. L. Lindahl. 1961. A note on the
flora and fauna in the rumen of steers fed a feedlot bloat-
provoking ration and the effect of penicillin. Appl. Microbiol. 9:
511−515.
Carruthers, V. R., A. M. Bryant, and F.R.M. Cockrem. 1988. Quan-
tity of digesta in the reticulo-rumen of cows differing in suscep-
tibility to bloat. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 31:111−119.
Cheng, K.-J., C. B. Bailey, R. Hironaka, and J. W. Costerton. 1979.
Bloat in feedlot cattle: Effects on rumen function of adding 4%
sodium chloride to a concentrate diet. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59:
737−747.
Cheng, K.-J., and J. W. Costerton. 1975. Ultrastructure of cell-
envelopes of bacteria of the bovine rumen. Appl. Microbiol. 29:
841−849.
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.
Cheng, K.-J., R. Hironaka, G. A. Jones, T. Nicas, and J. W. Coster-
ton. 1976. Frothy feedlot bloat in cattle: production of extracel-
lular polysaccharides and development of viscosity in cultures
of Streptococcus bovis. Can. J. Microbiol. 22:450−459.
Clarke, R.T.J., and C.S.W. Reid. 1974. Foamy bloat of cattle. A
review. J. Dairy Sci. 57:753−785.
Dehority, B. A., and C. G. Orpin. 1988. Development of, and natural
fluctuations in, rumen microbial populations. In: P. N. Hobson
(Ed.) The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. pp 151−183. Elsevier
Applied Science, New York.
Dennis, S. M., T. G. Nagaraja, and E. E. Bartley. 1981. Effects of
lasalocid or monensin on lactate-producing or -using rumen
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.
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
feedlot bloat incidence in cattle as influenced by vegetable oil,
mineral oil and animal fat. J. Anim. Sci. 21:568−574.
Evers, A. D., and D. J. Stevens. 1985. Starch damage. In: Y. Pomer-
anz (Ed.) Advances in Cereal Science Technology. pp 321−349.
American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN.
Forster, R. J., and J. Gong. 1995. Probing the rumen: Molecular
genetics and the rumen microbial ecosystem. In: M. Ivan (Ed.)
Animal Science Research and Development: Toward a New
Century. pp 570−578. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada,
Ottawa, ON.
Garry, F. 1990. Managing bloat in cattle. Symposium on bovine
digestive diseases. Vet. Med. June:643−650.
Gramlich, S. M., R. T. Brandt, Jr., T. G. Nagaraja, S. A. Shuey, and
G. Towne. 1993. Effects of tallow and monensin on sub-acute
acidosis in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):79.
Hall, J. W., and W. Majak. 1992. Rapid screening of feed supple-
ments for the prevention of legume bloat. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:
613−617.
Hall, J. W., I. Walker, and W. Majak. 1994. Evaluation of two
supplements for the prevention of alfalfa bloat. Can. Vet. J. 35:
702−705.
 BLOAT IN FEEDLOT CATTLE
Hart, L. 1993. Bloat: Still no guarantee in life. Country Guide,
Western Ed., January, p 27.
Hentges, J. F. Jr. 1970. Factors affecting feedlot performance of beef
cattle. Fla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Mimeo Rep. AN70−8.
Hironaka, R. 1968. Starter rations for beef cattle in feedlots. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 49:181−188.
Hironaka, R., J. E. Miltimore, J. M. McArthur, D. R. McGregor, and
E. S. Smith. 1973. Influence of particle size of concentrate on
rumen conditions associated with feedlot bloat. Can. J. Anim.
Sci. 53:75−80.
Hoshino, S., M. Wakita, and Y. Kobayashi. 1987. Effects of
salinomycin on grain bloat in fattening Japanese black cattle.
J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 57:123−129.
Howarth, R. E., R. K. Chaplin, K.-J. Cheng, B. P. Goplen, J. W. Hall,
R. Hironaka, W. Majak, and O. M. Radostits. 1991. Bloat in
cattle. pp 1−32. Agriculture Canada Publication 1858/E.
Hristov, A., T. A. McAllister, and K.-J. Cheng. 1996. Exogenous
enzymes for ruminants: Modes of action and potential applica-
tions. In: 17th Western Nutrition Conference, Technical Sym-
posium. pp 51−61. Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Kim, Y. K., and F. N. Owens. 1985. Starch digestion by feedlot
cattle: influence of roughage and intake level and particle size.
Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-17:298−305.
Kotarski, S. F., R. D. Waniska, and K. K. Thurn. 1992. Starch
hydrolysis by the ruminal microflora. J. Nutr. 122:178−190.
Kreikemeier, K. K., D. L. Harmon, R. T. Brandt Jr., T. G. Nagaraja,
and R. C. Cochran. 1990. Steam-rolled wheat diets for finishing
cattle: Effects of dietary roughage and feed intake on finishing
steer performance and ruminal metabolism. J. Anim. Sci. 68:
2130−2141.
Leblanc, D., A. Morin, and J. Diagneault. 1993. Comparative effect
of salinomycin and monensin on Streptococcus bovis strain
ATCC-9809. Microbios 76:41−45.
Lippke, H., J. L. Reaves, and N. L. Jacobson. 1972. Rumen pressures
associated with the scores of a bloat severity scale. J. Anim. Sci.
34:171−175.
Majak, W., J. W. Hall, and W. P. McCaughey. 1995. Pasture
management strategies for reducing the risk of legume bloat in
cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1493−1497.
Mangan, J. L. 1988. Nutritional effects of tannins in animal feeds.
Nutr. Res. Rev. 1:209−231.
Martin, S. A., and D. J. Nisbet. 1992. Effect of direct-fed microbials
on rumen microbial fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1736−1744.
Mathison, G. W., D. F. Engstrom, and D. D. Macleod. 1991. Effect of
feeding whole and rolled barley to steers in the morning or
afternoon in diets containing differing proportions of hay and
grain. Anim. Prod. 53:321−330.
McAllister, T. A., and K.-J. Cheng. 1996. Microbial strategies in the
ruminal digestion of cereal grains. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 62:
29−36.
McAllister, T. A., R. C. Phillippe, L. M. Rode, and K.-J. Cheng. 1993.
Effect of the protein matrix on the digestion of cereal grains by
ruminal microorganisms. J. Anim. Sci. 71:205−212.
McAllister, T. A., L. M. Rode, D. J. Major, K.-J. Cheng, and J. G.
Buchanan-Smith. 1990. Effect of ruminal microbial colonization
on cereal grain digestion. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70:571−579.
McAllister, T. A., Z. Xu, Y. Dong, M. D. Pickard, and K.-J. Cheng.
1996. Effect of micronized wheat on nutrient digestibility and
the performance of feedlot lambs and steers. p 8. Proc. Annu.
Mtg. Can. Soc. Anim. Sci. July 7−11, 1996, Lethbridge, AB.
Merchen, N. R., and L. L. Berger. 1985. Effect of salinomycin level
on nutrient digestibility and ruminal characteristics of sheep
and feedlot performance of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1338−1346.
Merchen, N. R., J. L. Firkins, and L. L. Berger. 1986. Effect of
intake and forage level on ruminal turnover rates, bacterial
protein synthesis and duodenal amino acid flows in sheep. J.
Anim. Sci. 62:216−225.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/76/1/299/4625202
by guest
on 29 January 2018
307
Merrill, J. 1994. A Canadian Feedlot Health and Nutrition Sympo-
sium, Rumensin field trial results. Elanco Animal Health,
Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Mir, Z., and P. S. Mir. 1994. Effect of the addition of live yeast
( Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on growth and carcass quality of
steers fed high-forage or high-grain diets and on feed digestibil-
ity and in situ degradability. J. Anim. Sci. 72:537−545.
Mishra, B. 1965. Role of Streptococcus bovis in rumen metabolism
with special reference to bloat in cattle. Indian J. Vet. Sci. 37:
232.
Nagaraja, T. G. 1994. Rumen microbial and fermentative changes
associated with grain bloat in cattle. Proc. Soc. Nutr. Physiol. 3:
207. (Abstr.).
Nagaraja, T. G., M. B. Taylor, D. L. Harmon, and J. E. Boyer. 1987.
In vitro lactic acid inhibition and alterations in volatile fatty
acid production by antimicrobial feed additives. J. Anim. Sci.
65:1064−1076.
Nagaraja, T. G., and G. W. Wolfrom. 1993. Evaluation of lysocellin
on frothy bloat in cattle fed bloat-provocative, high-grain diet.
J. Anim. Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):79.
Nocek, J. E., and S. Tamminga. 1991. Site of digestion of starch in
the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows and its effect on milk
yield and composition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3598−3629.
Odelson, D. A., L. Nelms, S. F. Kotarski, and R. B. Hespell. 1993.
Development of a DNA probe for the detection of ruminal
Streptococcus bovis. 22nd Conference on Rumen Function 22:
12. Chicago, IL.
Okine, E. K., G. W. Mathison, and R. T. Hardin. 1989. Relations
between passage rates of rumen fluid and particulate matter
and foam production in rumen contents of cattle fed on differ-
ent diets ad lib. Br. J. Nutr. 61:387−395.
Perry, T. W. 1995. Feedlot disease. In: T. W. Perry and M. J. Cecava
(Ed.) Beef Cattle Feeding and Nutrition (2nd Ed.). pp
283−290. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Preston, T. R., J. N. Aitken, F. G. Whitelaw, A. Macdearmid, E. B.
Philip, and N. A. MacLeod. 1963. Intensive beef production. 3.
Performance of Friesian steers given low-fibre diets. Anim.
Prod. 5:245−249.
Ramsey, P. B., G. W. Mathison, and L. A. Goonewardene. 1997.
Effect of ruminal degradability and apparent digestibility of
barley grain on performance of steers in the feedlot. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. (In press).
Reid, C.S.W., R.T.J. Clarke, F.R.M. Cockrem, W. T. Jones, J. T.
McIntosh, and D. E. Wright. 1975. Physiological and genetical
aspects of pasture (legume) bloat. In: I. W. McDonald and
A.C.I. Warner (Ed.) Digestion and Metabolism in the
Ruminant. pp 524−536. University of New England, Armidale,
N.S.W., Australia.
Sakauchi, R., and S. Hoshino. 1981a. Microbial characteristics of
ruminal fluid from feedlot bloat beef cattle. Disorder of
ruminants caused by retention of gas in the stomach. J. Gen.
Appl. Microbiol. 27:145−155.
Sakauchi, R., and S. Hoshino. 1981b. Ruminal characteristics in
feedlot bloat cattle fed high roughage and high concentrate
diets. Jpn. J. Zootech. Sci. 52: 118−124.
Stock, R. A., S. B. Laudert, W. W. Stroup, E. M. Larson, J. C.
Parrott, and R. A. Britton. 1995. Effect of monensin and
monensin and tylosin combination on feed intake variation of
feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 73:39−44.
Swingle, S. 1995. Effect of roughage level and type on intake and
performance of feedlot cattle. Proc. Symp. Intake by Feedlot
Cattle, November 17−19, 1994. p 257. Oklahoma State Univer-
sity Press. Stillwater.
Theurer, C. B. 1986. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by
ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1649−1662.
Varner, L. W., and W. Woods. 1975. Influence of wheat variety upon
in vitro and in vivo lactate levels. J. Anim. Sci. 41:900−905.
Vogel, G. J., and C. Parrott. 1994. Mortality survey in feedyards:
 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