nutrition and physiology of white-tailed deer consuming whole ...

NUTRITION AND PHYSIOLOGY OF
WHITE-TAILED DEER CONSUMING
WHOLE COTTONSEED.
S. L. BULLOCK ¹, D. G. HEWITT ¹, R. STANKO ², K. C.
McCUISTION ², M. K. DOWD ³, D. DRAEGER 4, and
J. RUTLEDGE 5
1 Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. Texas A&M University-Kingsville,
Kingsville, TX USA.
2 Department of Animal and Wildlife Sciences, Texas A&M University-Kingsville,
Kingsville, TX USA.
3 Southern Regional Research Center, ARS-USDA, New Orleans, LA, 70124, USA .
4 Comanche Ranch, Carrizo Springs, TX, 78834, USA.
5 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Carrizo Springs, TX, 78834, USA

Introduction: Whole Cottonseed
(WCS) as a Supplement (Pros)
~Fed For Over 100 Years~
‣ Increased Interest
‣ High Quality Feed
‣ Protein, Fat, Fiber
‣ Not Readily Consumed by
Non-target Species
‣ Weather Resistant
‣ Inexpensive Set-Up
Photo by Randy DeYoung

Introduction: Whole Cottonseed
as a Supplement (Cons)
‣ Gossypol!
‣ Problems in ruminants:
‣ Blood Fragility
‣ Reproduction in ♂s
‣ Antlers
‣ Body Condition
‣ Lack of Knowledge

Introduction: Fallow Deer
(Dama dama)
‣ 12 deer (1.5-2.5 years of age)
‣ 8 month duration
‣ Gossypol Concentration
‣ 5.36 ug/mL ± 0.55 ug/mL (2.5)
‣ 8.03 ug/mL ± 0.55 ug/mL (1.5)
‣ Reductions In:
‣ Antler Calcification
‣ Testosterone Concentrations
‣ Antler Weight

Introduction: Red Deer
(Cervus elaphus) in Europe
‣ Gossypol Effects on Red Deer Reproduction:
‣ Sperm Motility
‣ Sperm abnormalities
‣ Early Season
‣ Peak Season
‣ Hormone Suppression

Objectives
1. Nutrient Values & Digestibility of WCS in Whitetailed
Deer.
2. Health and Production of Captive White-tailed Deer
Consuming WCS.
3. Rate of Elimination of Gossypol, Indicated by
Plasma Gossypol Concentration

Objectives
1. Nutrient Values & Digestibility of WCS in
White-tailed Deer.
2. Health and Production of Captive White-tailed Deer
Consuming WCS.
3. Rate of Elimination of Gossypol, Indicated by
Plasma Gossypol Concentration

Experimental Design:
Facilities and Feed
‣ Pens
(Alkek Ungulate Facility)
‣ 0.1 ha communal pens
‣ 4 X 5m stalls
‣ Feedstuff
‣ Control (ad libitum
pelleted feedstuff &
alfalfa)
‣ Treatment (ad libitum
WCS & alfalfa ration)
‣ Analyses at Lehman
Forage Lab

Objective 1: Nutrient Values of
‣ Cottonseed:
WCS
‣ Gross Energy
‣ 5.39 Kcal/g
‣ Crude Protein
‣ 22%
‣ Crude Fat
‣ 17%
‣ Fiber
‣ NDF 51 %
‣ ADF 40 %
‣ Gossypol
‣ 0.53%

Objective 1: Nutrient Values of
WCS
‣ Cottonseed:
‣ Gross Energy
‣ 5.39 Kcal/g
‣ Crude Protein
‣ 22 %
‣ Crude Fat
‣ 17%
‣ Fiber
‣ NDF 51 %
‣ ADF 40%
‣ Gossypol
‣ 0.53%
‣ Chopped Alfalfa:
‣ Gross Energy
‣ 4.25 Kcal/g
‣ Crude Protein
‣ 19%
‣ Crude Fat
‣ 2%
‣ Fiber
‣ NDF 41%
‣ ADF 31 %
‣ Pellets:
‣ Gross Energy
‣ 4.19 Kcal/g
‣ Crude Protein
‣ 20 %
‣ Crude Fat
‣ < 2 %
‣ Fiber
‣ NDF 38 %
‣ ADF 23 %

Objective 1: Digestibility
Complete Balance Trial
‣ (2 Bucks & 2 Does in a Crossover
Exp. Design)
‣ 19 day trial
‣ Monitored Feed Intake
‣ Collected all Excreta
‣ Diets:
‣ Diet 1:
‣ Diet 2:
‣ 75% WCS : 25% Chopped
Alfalfa
‣ 0% WCS :100% Chopped
Alfalfa

‣ Cottonseed:
Objective 1: Digestibility
‣ Dry Matter Digestibility
‣ 51%
‣ Digestible Energy
‣ 3.38 kcals/g
‣ Digestible Protein
‣ 17 g/ 100 g Feed
‣ Crude Fat Digestibility
‣ 97 %

Objectives
1. Nutrient Values & Digestibility of WCS in Whitetailed
Deer.
2. Health and Production of Captive White-tailed
Deer Consuming WCS.
3. Rate of Elimination of Gossypol, Indicated by
Plasma Gossypol Concentration

Objective 2: Health &
Production
‣ Feeding Trial #1
‣ Bucks & Does
‣ Approx. 50% WCS Ration
‣ Assessed
‣ Blood Fragility ( )
‣ Body Condition Score & mm of Rump Fat ( )
‣ Antler Measurements & Density ( )
‣ Weight Gain/Loss ( )
‣ Plasma Gossypol Level ( )
‣ Sperm Quality
June 1 st Aug.1 st Oct.1 st Nov. 1 st

Weights (kg)
Objective 2: Health &
‣ Weight Gain/Loss
Production
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Treatment Does
Control Does
Treatment Bucks
Control Bucks
5/28/2007 7/17/2007 9/5/2007 10/25/2007 12/14/2007
Date

Objective 2: Health &
Production
‣ Rump Fat & Body Condition Score
‣ October 2007
* Denotes P ≤ 0.05
Control
Treatment
Mean
Mean
Variable N w/ CI N w/CI
Testes Length (R) 4 10.6cm ±0.96 5 9.1cm ±1.44
Testes Length (L) 4 10.7cm ±1.05 5 9.3cm ±1.22
Scrotal Circumference 4 17.7cm ±0.93 5 16.2cm ±1.29
♂
Body Condition Score 4 4.6 ±0.25* 5 3.8 ±0.38*
♂
Rump Fat 4 2.0cm ±0.15* 5 1.7cm ±0.11*
♀
Body Condition Score 5 3.9 ±0.37* 5 2.8 ±0.39*
♀
Rump Fat 5 1.5cm ±0.3 5 1.2cm ±0.4

Objective 2c: Sperm Quality
‣Sperm Quality via Electo-Ejaculation
‣Peak Breeding Period (Dec. 07)
December 2007
% %
Scrotal
Circumference
Motility w/ C.I. Normal w/ C.I. w/ C.I (cm)
Cottonseed 78 ± 16.6 73 ±12.5 18.4 ±0.74
Control 89 ±12.3 77 ±9.6 18.1 ±0.74

‣ Antler Density
Objective 2: Health &
‣ TRT:
1.53 g/mL
± 0.12
‣ CTRL: 1.62 g/mL
± 0.08
‣ Plasma Gossypol Levels
‣ Females: 10.17 ug/mL
± 2.73
Males:
Production
9.80 ug/mL
± 2.40
‣ Non-Detectable in
CTRL

‣ Antler Density
Objective 2: Health &
Production
‣ TRT:
1.53 g/mL
± 0.12
‣ CTRL: 1.62 g/mL
± 0.08
‣ Plasma Gossypol Levels
‣ Females: 10.17 ug/mL
± 2.73
Males:
9.80 ug/mL
± 2.40
‣ Non-Detectable in
CTRL
‣ Comparison:
‣ Fallow Deer
‣ 5.36 ug/mL ± 0.55 (2.5)
‣ 8.03 ug/mL ± 0.55 (1.5)

% Blood Cell Lyses
Objective 2: Health &
Production
‣ Blood Fragility
100
80
Control Does
Treatment Does
Control Bucks
Treatment Bucks
60
40
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Saline Concentration (g of NaCl/100mL)

Objectives
1. Nutrient Values & Digestibility of WCS in Whitetailed
Deer.
2. Health and Production of Captive White-tailed Deer
Consuming WCS.
3. Rate of Elimination of Gossypol, Indicated by
Plasma Gossypol Concentration

Objective 3a: Elimination of
Gossypol
‣ Late Oct. 2007 -- Early Dec. 2007
‣ Samples Taken Every Week
‣ Span = 5 weeks
End of Trial #1
Blood Samples
Protein Pellets Only
Fed WCS
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.

Gossypol (ug/mL)
Objective 3a: Elimination of
Gossypol
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
Bucks
Does
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Week

Summary & Discussion:
‣ WCS has Similar DE & DP
as a Commercial Pelleted
Feedstuff
‣ WT Deer Seem to Regulate
Intake of WCS
Photo by Randy DeYoung
‣ Lack Most Signs of Toxicosis
‣ However, Lack Expected
Gain in Weights & Body
Condition
Photo by David G. Hewitt

Acknowledgments
‣ Financial Assistance:
‣ Comanche Ranch
‣ Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research
Institute
‣ Texas A&M University-Kingsville
‣ Anonymous Donors
‣ Houston Safari Club
‣ Texas Parks & Wildlife Foundation
‣ Quail Unlimited
‣ Technical Assistance:
‣ Chuck Coots
‣ Robert Kaiser
‣ Co-Authors:
‣ David Hewitt
‣ Kim McCuistion
‣ Randy Stanko
‣ Michael Dowd
‣ Don Draeger
‣ Jimmy Rutledge
‣ Various grads and undergrads

Thank You & Questions?