Effects of non-steroidal growth implant and dietary zilpaterol hydrochloride on growth and carcass characteristics of feedlot lambs

The effects of steroidal growth implants alone or in combination with β-adrenergic agonist feed additives have not been studied thoroughly in mutton sheep in South African feedlot conditions. This study investigated the effects of a non-steroidal growth implant zeranol (Ralgro®), alone or in combination with zilpaterol hydrochloride (Zilmax®), on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and selected meat quality traits in 160 SA Mutton Merino ram lambs fed in a commercial feedlot. The experimental design consisted of two Ralgro treatment groups x two Zilmax treatments x two Zilmax feeding periods x 20 animals per treatment group. Lambs were randomly allocated to eight treatment groups, of which one half were implanted with Ralgro after arrival, followed by feed supplementation with Zilmax at two Zilmax feeding periods during the finisher phase, compared with negative control treatments (e.g. no Ralgro or Zilmax; Ralgro + no Zilmax; or no Ralgro + Zilmax). All lambs were fed the grower ration traditionally used by the commercial feedlot, which contained 16.89% crude protein (CP) and 2.94 Mcal/kg dry matter (DM). Zilmax was supplemented in the feed at 40 mg per animal per day and fed for 18 days or 25 days, plus three days withdrawal. Lambs that did not receive the Zilmax treatment were fed the basal diet without Zilmax feed supplementation. Ralgro significantly increased average daily gains (ADG) and cold carcass mass (CCM) of lambs. Lambs supplemented with Zilmax during the finisher phase had higher ADG, greater CCM and increased dressing percentage by ca.1.1% compared with those in the control group. Lambs fed Zilmax for 25 days had higher CCM than those fed for 18 days. The duration of the Zilmax treatment also decreased hide weight, fat thickness and shear force values (tenderness). Zilmax increased ADG and CCM in lambs, particularly if combined with Ralgro implants during the growing phase. The results from this study indicate that the combination of Ralgro implants with Zilmax feed supplementation during the finisher phase had additive effects and increased ADG and CCM of feedlot lambs.Keywords: Growth performance, meat quality, South African Mutton Merino, sheep, Ralgro®, Zilmax®

Effects of production system and growth promotants on the physiological maturity scores in steers

López-Campos, Ó., Aalhus, J. L., Larsen, I. L., Juárez, M. and Basarab, J. A. 2014. Effects of production system and growth promotants on the physiological maturity scores in steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 607–617. Over a 2-yr period, 224 crossbred steers were allotted to a 2×2×2 factorial arrangement of treatments to determine the effect of the production system (calf-fed vs. yearling-fed), growth implant strategy (non-implanted vs. implanted) and β-agonist supplementation (no ractopamine vs. ractopamine) on physiological indicators of maturity. Dentition and ossification scores along the vertebral column were collected post-mortem during head inspection and grading. Dentition score was significantly affected (P<0.001) by production system, but not by implant (P=0.68) or β-agonist (P=0.31). There were significant interactions (P<0.001) between production system and implant strategy on the frequencies of carcasses showing ossification in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral vertebral processes. There was a significant interaction (P<0.0001) between the production system and implant strategy on the frequencies of the carcasses considered as <21 or >21 mo of age based on a segregation model using only physiological maturity assessments. These data emphasize the inability of physiological scores to accurately reflect chronological age, with overall classification accuracies of 0.68 and 0.53 for dentition and ossification scores. The highest overall classification accuracies were obtained using the thoracic (0.74) or lumbar (0.69) ossification scores. Implants accelerate the ossification process, particularly in younger animals, thus having a dramatic effect on numbers of animals eligible to be categorized as <21 mo of age based on physiological maturity evaluation.

Effects of calf- and yearling-fed beef production systems and growth promotants on production and profitability

López-Campos, Ó., Aalhus, J. L., Okine, E. K., Baron, V. S. and Basarab, J. A. 2013. Effects of calf- and yearling-fed beef production systems and growth promotants on production and profitability. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 171–184. In each of 2 yr, 112 spring-born steers were used to evaluate the effect of calf-fed vs. yearling-fed with and without growth implant and β-adrenergic agonist on production parameters and economic potential. Steers were grouped into: (1) non-implanted feeders harvested at 11–14 mo of age, (2) growth implanted feeders harvested at 11–14 mo of age, (3) non-implanted feeders harvested at 19–23 mo of age, and (4) growth implanted feeders harvested at 19–23 mo of age. Production data were collected and economic evaluation was performed. Calf-fed steers grew slower (1.21 vs. 1.99±0.07 kg d−1) and had a poorer feed conversion ratio [5.32 vs. 4.99±0.34 kg dry matter intake (DMI) kg−1 gain] during the feedlot dietary adjustment period than yearling-fed. Calf-fed steers were more efficient than yearling-fed during the first 76–83 d (5.16 vs. 7.33±0.11 kg DMI kg−1 gain) and latter 48–79 d (5.69 vs. 14.28±1.50 kg DMI kg−1 gain) of the finishing period. Implanted steers were more efficient than non-implanted during the dietary feedlot adjustment period (4.80 vs. 5.52±0.15 kg DMI kg−1 gain), and during the first 76–83 d (6.05 vs. 6.44±0.11 kg DMI kg−1 gain) and latter 48–79 d of the finishing period (9.29 vs. 10.69±1.50 kg DMI kg−1 gain). Implanted steers grew 11.4–19.6% faster than non-implanted throughout the finishing period, while yearling-fed grew 11.1–12.9% faster during the first 76–83 d, but 49.1–64.4% slower during the last 48–79 d of the finishing period compared with calf-fed. Quality grade was improved for non-implanted steers, with 43.6% of yearling-fed and 35.7% calf-fed steers grading AAA. Adjusted net return was best for calf-fed implanted ($17.52 head−1), followed by calf-fed non-implanted ($−41.92 head−1), yearling-fed implanted ($−73.77 head−1), and yearling-fed non-implanted ($−99.65 head−1) production strategies. The results of the present study suggest that reducing age at slaughter combined with growth implant can increase profit and reduce risk, but growth implants can negatively affect the carcass quality.

Effects of a growth implant and age of dam on growth and fertility in heifer calves

A field trial was conducted to determine the effects of a growth implant on growth, pregnancy rate, calving difficulty and calf weaning weight in replacement beef heifers. Heifers were assigned equally to either a control (n = 43; no implant), Ralgro (n = 43) or Synovex-C (n = 42) treatment group based on age of dam and age and weight at the start of the trial (implantation at 45–90 d of age). Neither Ralgro nor Synovex-C enhanced heifer weight or average daily gain (ADG) from the start of the trial to weaning (approximately 7 mo of age), breeding, or pregnancy determination. At breeding, Synovex-C implanted heifers had greater pelvic area than controls while Ralgro implanted heifers were intermediate (control = 149.7, Ralgro = 154.7 and Synovex-C = 157.4 pooled SE of 2.2 cm2; P = 0.05). Pelvic dimensions were similar among treatments at pregnancy determination and there were no treatment effects on calving difficulty. Age of dam affected heifer weight (P = 0.0005) and ADG (P = 0.001) to weaning, with heifers from mature cows weighing more at weaning and having a higher ADG from the start of the study to weaning than heifers from either first- or second-calf cows. Post-weaning performance of heifers from first-calf cows was similar to heifers from mature cows while heifers from second-calf cows were lighter at breeding (P = 0.04) and had a lower ADG from weaning to breeding (P = 0.04). Age of dam did not influence pregnancy rate (P = 0.10), but more heifers from second-calf cows calved late in the calving season (≥ 64 d) compared with heifers from either first-calf or mature cows (P = 0.04). It appears from this field trial that use of a growth implant between 45 and 90 d of age neither enhanced growth nor impaired fertility in beef heifers bred as yearlings. It also appears that second-calf 3-yr-olds may need to be managed separately from the mature cow herd in order to optimize replacement heifer development. Key words: Bovine, replacement heifers, growth implant, age of dam, weight, pregnancy rate