Loading…

189 Comparison of growth-promoting implant regimens from calfhood to finishing in beef steers: finishing phase

The objective of this study was to compare growth-promoting implant regimens and their effect on growth performance and carcass traits. Crossbred beef steers (n = 106; body weight = 96 ± 3.9 kg; age = 74 ± 2.0 d) were blocked by parity of dam (≤ 2 or > 2 parities), and stratified by birth weight,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2019-07, Vol.97 (Supplement_1), p.66-66
Main Authors: Ball, Jase, Herring, Ellen, Kegley, Elizabeth B, Richeson, John T, Apple, Jason K, Tomczak, D J, Palmer, Elizabeth, Powell, Jeremy G
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 66
container_issue Supplement_1
container_start_page 66
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 97
creator Ball, Jase
Herring, Ellen
Kegley, Elizabeth B
Richeson, John T
Apple, Jason K
Tomczak, D J
Palmer, Elizabeth
Powell, Jeremy G
description The objective of this study was to compare growth-promoting implant regimens and their effect on growth performance and carcass traits. Crossbred beef steers (n = 106; body weight = 96 ± 3.9 kg; age = 74 ± 2.0 d) were blocked by parity of dam (≤ 2 or > 2 parities), and stratified by birth weight, calf age, calf sire, cow body weight and body condition score then were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) administered Ralgro at branding (D 0), Ralgro at weaning (D 156), and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (D 325; RALG), 2) administered Component E-C at branding, Component TE-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (COMP), 3) no growth-promoting implant at branding, administered Revalor-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (N-REV), or 4) no growth-promoting implants administered during any phase of production (CTRL). Quantitative data were analyzed using PROC MIXED, whereas qualitative data were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. At the end of the stocker phase (d 323), RALG (330 kg), COMP (324 kg), and N-REV (318 kg) were heavier (P = 0.02) compared to CTRL (297 kg). Calves implanted at branding, weaning, and feedlot entry (RALG and COMP) were ≥ 87 kg heavier than CTRL and 17 kg heavier compared to calves implanted only at weaning and feedlot entry (N-REV). Overall ADG during the feedlot phase were greater (P < 0.01) for RALG (2.17), COMP (2.17), and N-REV (2.09) compared to CTRL (1.76 kg). Hot carcass weights were greater (P < 0.01) in implanted steers compared to CTRL; however, quality grade was not affected (P = 0.79) by growth-promoting implant regimen. Implanting steers at branding or weaning may not negatively affect feedlot growth performance or carcass traits.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jas/skz053.149
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmedcentral_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6663732</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6663732</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1349-9fa3d86d18133cf5429ec6f4fe1dc299daf00ebb68698c1e7c5a5967d2c86def3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkDtPwzAURi0EEqWwMvsPpPUjdmMGJFTxkiqxwGw5znXi0tiRHUDw6wkUIZjucO53hoPQOSULShRfbk1e5ucPIviCluoAzahgouBU8kM0I4TRoqooO0YnOW8JoUwoMUOBVgqvYz-Y5HMMODrcpvg2dsWQYh9HH1rs-2FnwogTtL6HkLGbELZm57oYGzxG7Hzwufv-DbgGcDiPAClf_CFDZzKcoiNndhnOfu4cPd1cP67vis3D7f36alNYyktVKGd4U8mGVpRz60TJFFjpSge0sUypxjhCoK5lJVVlKaysMELJVcPstALH5-hy7x1e6h4aC2FMZqeH5HuT3nU0Xv8nwXe6ja9aSslXnE2CxV5gU8w5gfvdUqK_cuspt97n1lNu_gm5W3jb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>189 Comparison of growth-promoting implant regimens from calfhood to finishing in beef steers: finishing phase</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Ball, Jase ; Herring, Ellen ; Kegley, Elizabeth B ; Richeson, John T ; Apple, Jason K ; Tomczak, D J ; Palmer, Elizabeth ; Powell, Jeremy G</creator><creatorcontrib>Ball, Jase ; Herring, Ellen ; Kegley, Elizabeth B ; Richeson, John T ; Apple, Jason K ; Tomczak, D J ; Palmer, Elizabeth ; Powell, Jeremy G</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study was to compare growth-promoting implant regimens and their effect on growth performance and carcass traits. Crossbred beef steers (n = 106; body weight = 96 ± 3.9 kg; age = 74 ± 2.0 d) were blocked by parity of dam (≤ 2 or &gt; 2 parities), and stratified by birth weight, calf age, calf sire, cow body weight and body condition score then were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) administered Ralgro at branding (D 0), Ralgro at weaning (D 156), and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (D 325; RALG), 2) administered Component E-C at branding, Component TE-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (COMP), 3) no growth-promoting implant at branding, administered Revalor-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (N-REV), or 4) no growth-promoting implants administered during any phase of production (CTRL). Quantitative data were analyzed using PROC MIXED, whereas qualitative data were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. At the end of the stocker phase (d 323), RALG (330 kg), COMP (324 kg), and N-REV (318 kg) were heavier (P = 0.02) compared to CTRL (297 kg). Calves implanted at branding, weaning, and feedlot entry (RALG and COMP) were ≥ 87 kg heavier than CTRL and 17 kg heavier compared to calves implanted only at weaning and feedlot entry (N-REV). Overall ADG during the feedlot phase were greater (P &lt; 0.01) for RALG (2.17), COMP (2.17), and N-REV (2.09) compared to CTRL (1.76 kg). Hot carcass weights were greater (P &lt; 0.01) in implanted steers compared to CTRL; however, quality grade was not affected (P = 0.79) by growth-promoting implant regimen. Implanting steers at branding or weaning may not negatively affect feedlot growth performance or carcass traits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz053.149</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Abstracts</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2019-07, Vol.97 (Supplement_1), p.66-66</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6663732/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6663732/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ball, Jase</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kegley, Elizabeth B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richeson, John T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apple, Jason K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomczak, D J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmer, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Powell, Jeremy G</creatorcontrib><title>189 Comparison of growth-promoting implant regimens from calfhood to finishing in beef steers: finishing phase</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>The objective of this study was to compare growth-promoting implant regimens and their effect on growth performance and carcass traits. Crossbred beef steers (n = 106; body weight = 96 ± 3.9 kg; age = 74 ± 2.0 d) were blocked by parity of dam (≤ 2 or &gt; 2 parities), and stratified by birth weight, calf age, calf sire, cow body weight and body condition score then were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) administered Ralgro at branding (D 0), Ralgro at weaning (D 156), and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (D 325; RALG), 2) administered Component E-C at branding, Component TE-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (COMP), 3) no growth-promoting implant at branding, administered Revalor-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (N-REV), or 4) no growth-promoting implants administered during any phase of production (CTRL). Quantitative data were analyzed using PROC MIXED, whereas qualitative data were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. At the end of the stocker phase (d 323), RALG (330 kg), COMP (324 kg), and N-REV (318 kg) were heavier (P = 0.02) compared to CTRL (297 kg). Calves implanted at branding, weaning, and feedlot entry (RALG and COMP) were ≥ 87 kg heavier than CTRL and 17 kg heavier compared to calves implanted only at weaning and feedlot entry (N-REV). Overall ADG during the feedlot phase were greater (P &lt; 0.01) for RALG (2.17), COMP (2.17), and N-REV (2.09) compared to CTRL (1.76 kg). Hot carcass weights were greater (P &lt; 0.01) in implanted steers compared to CTRL; however, quality grade was not affected (P = 0.79) by growth-promoting implant regimen. Implanting steers at branding or weaning may not negatively affect feedlot growth performance or carcass traits.</description><subject>Abstracts</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkDtPwzAURi0EEqWwMvsPpPUjdmMGJFTxkiqxwGw5znXi0tiRHUDw6wkUIZjucO53hoPQOSULShRfbk1e5ucPIviCluoAzahgouBU8kM0I4TRoqooO0YnOW8JoUwoMUOBVgqvYz-Y5HMMODrcpvg2dsWQYh9HH1rs-2FnwogTtL6HkLGbELZm57oYGzxG7Hzwufv-DbgGcDiPAClf_CFDZzKcoiNndhnOfu4cPd1cP67vis3D7f36alNYyktVKGd4U8mGVpRz60TJFFjpSge0sUypxjhCoK5lJVVlKaysMELJVcPstALH5-hy7x1e6h4aC2FMZqeH5HuT3nU0Xv8nwXe6ja9aSslXnE2CxV5gU8w5gfvdUqK_cuspt97n1lNu_gm5W3jb</recordid><startdate>20190729</startdate><enddate>20190729</enddate><creator>Ball, Jase</creator><creator>Herring, Ellen</creator><creator>Kegley, Elizabeth B</creator><creator>Richeson, John T</creator><creator>Apple, Jason K</creator><creator>Tomczak, D J</creator><creator>Palmer, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Powell, Jeremy G</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190729</creationdate><title>189 Comparison of growth-promoting implant regimens from calfhood to finishing in beef steers: finishing phase</title><author>Ball, Jase ; Herring, Ellen ; Kegley, Elizabeth B ; Richeson, John T ; Apple, Jason K ; Tomczak, D J ; Palmer, Elizabeth ; Powell, Jeremy G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1349-9fa3d86d18133cf5429ec6f4fe1dc299daf00ebb68698c1e7c5a5967d2c86def3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Abstracts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ball, Jase</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herring, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kegley, Elizabeth B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richeson, John T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apple, Jason K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomczak, D J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmer, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Powell, Jeremy G</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ball, Jase</au><au>Herring, Ellen</au><au>Kegley, Elizabeth B</au><au>Richeson, John T</au><au>Apple, Jason K</au><au>Tomczak, D J</au><au>Palmer, Elizabeth</au><au>Powell, Jeremy G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>189 Comparison of growth-promoting implant regimens from calfhood to finishing in beef steers: finishing phase</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2019-07-29</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>Supplement_1</issue><spage>66</spage><epage>66</epage><pages>66-66</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>The objective of this study was to compare growth-promoting implant regimens and their effect on growth performance and carcass traits. Crossbred beef steers (n = 106; body weight = 96 ± 3.9 kg; age = 74 ± 2.0 d) were blocked by parity of dam (≤ 2 or &gt; 2 parities), and stratified by birth weight, calf age, calf sire, cow body weight and body condition score then were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) administered Ralgro at branding (D 0), Ralgro at weaning (D 156), and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (D 325; RALG), 2) administered Component E-C at branding, Component TE-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (COMP), 3) no growth-promoting implant at branding, administered Revalor-G at weaning, and Revalor XS at feedlot processing (N-REV), or 4) no growth-promoting implants administered during any phase of production (CTRL). Quantitative data were analyzed using PROC MIXED, whereas qualitative data were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. At the end of the stocker phase (d 323), RALG (330 kg), COMP (324 kg), and N-REV (318 kg) were heavier (P = 0.02) compared to CTRL (297 kg). Calves implanted at branding, weaning, and feedlot entry (RALG and COMP) were ≥ 87 kg heavier than CTRL and 17 kg heavier compared to calves implanted only at weaning and feedlot entry (N-REV). Overall ADG during the feedlot phase were greater (P &lt; 0.01) for RALG (2.17), COMP (2.17), and N-REV (2.09) compared to CTRL (1.76 kg). Hot carcass weights were greater (P &lt; 0.01) in implanted steers compared to CTRL; however, quality grade was not affected (P = 0.79) by growth-promoting implant regimen. Implanting steers at branding or weaning may not negatively affect feedlot growth performance or carcass traits.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/jas/skz053.149</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2019-07, Vol.97 (Supplement_1), p.66-66
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6663732
source Oxford Journals Online; PubMed Central
subjects Abstracts
title 189 Comparison of growth-promoting implant regimens from calfhood to finishing in beef steers: finishing phase
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T03%3A03%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmedcentral_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=189%20Comparison%20of%20growth-promoting%20implant%20regimens%20from%20calfhood%20to%20finishing%20in%20beef%20steers:%20finishing%20phase&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Ball,%20Jase&rft.date=2019-07-29&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=Supplement_1&rft.spage=66&rft.epage=66&rft.pages=66-66&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jas/skz053.149&rft_dat=%3Cpubmedcentral_cross%3Epubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6663732%3C/pubmedcentral_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1349-9fa3d86d18133cf5429ec6f4fe1dc299daf00ebb68698c1e7c5a5967d2c86def3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true