1 / 22

Anabolic Implants

seth
Download Presentation

Anabolic Implants

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Anabolic Implants Over 90% of feedlot cattle receive some type of anabolic implant during the finishing phase Increase average daily gain, feed intakes and improve feed efficiency Currently 22 implant products on the market Used for calves, stocker cattle, and finishing cattle Reduce beef production costs by 7%

    5. How to Implant

    6. Hormones approved for use in growth promoting implants 3 Natural Hormones: Estradiol Progesterone Testosterone 2 Synthetic hormones: Zeranol Trenbolone acetate (TBA)

    7. Mode of Action Estrogenic (Estradiol and Zeranol implants): enhance muscle growth through increased production of growth hormone (via IGF) Androgenic (TBA and testosterone implants): enhance muscle growth by inhibiting the release of hormones that cause muscle degradation Combination (Estrogenic and Androgenic implants) additive effects

    11. Summary-Growing Cattle Suckling calves: Ralgro or Synovex-C Steers +$17/head Heifers +$18/head Replacements--reduces pregnancy rates Can implant once at 2 mo of age or at weaning without dramatic effect Stocker: Ralgro Steers +$ 12.50/head Heifers +$11.50/head Influenced by forage availability, genetic potential, creep feeding

    12. Feedlot Steers

    13. Feedlot Steers

    14. Implant Types: Steers

    15. Backfat and Marbling Regressed Against Hot Carcass Weight

    16. Cattle x Implant Influences on % Choice Implant Strategya Flesh Control Plus RevS RalRevS Avg 67 54 58 59 Thin 69 32 44 60 a Trt P < .01 Block P=.09

    17. Early Calf Growth and Marbling Weaning Management Early Creep Normal ADG, kg 177-231dab 3.17 1.81 1.37 231-443da 2.82 3.04 3.04 Marblinga 1198* 1144 1120 aEarly vs. rest (P < .01) bCreep vs. normal (P < .05) *1100 = Modesto

    18. Relationship of empty body fat to Quality Grade (Guiroy, 2001, total of 1,355 animals) A dataset using 1,355 head of animals predicts a particular marbling score (quality grade) in relation to a specific empty body fat. This can be used to help explain why cattle did not reach there genetic potential to marble if their empty body fat was not a minimum of 28.6% empty body fat.A dataset using 1,355 head of animals predicts a particular marbling score (quality grade) in relation to a specific empty body fat. This can be used to help explain why cattle did not reach there genetic potential to marble if their empty body fat was not a minimum of 28.6% empty body fat.

    19. Predicted EBF by USDA Grade These numbers were derived by taking all cattle by implant treatment within a quality grade and averaging there empty body fat to get the mean EBF by quality grade within a implant strategy. This table demonstrates that overall the amount of empty body fat is not different among implant treatments to reach low choice. This demonstrates that if we can get cattle to the same level of finish they should reach there genetic potential to reach a minimum of low choice. No implant = 29.3% EBF at low choice Rev-S/Rev-S = 29.7% EBF at low choiceThese numbers were derived by taking all cattle by implant treatment within a quality grade and averaging there empty body fat to get the mean EBF by quality grade within a implant strategy. This table demonstrates that overall the amount of empty body fat is not different among implant treatments to reach low choice. This demonstrates that if we can get cattle to the same level of finish they should reach there genetic potential to reach a minimum of low choice. No implant = 29.3% EBF at low choice Rev-S/Rev-S = 29.7% EBF at low choice

    20. Shrunk BW at 28%EBF in Steers Weight @28% EBF is the adjusted final weight using carcass measurements to adjust the final shrunk body weight to a equal fat endpoint. Data presented in this slide demonstrates that as we increase anabolic dose we increase the weight required for obtaining an equal body fat endpoint. The data separated itself out into 5 categories that are statistically different. Control = category 1, Rev-IS and Comp-ES=category 2, Rev-S 1x and Ralgro/Rev-S = category 3, etc. The different superscripts indicate a difference of (P<.01). The key to using this data is what producers can expect in finished weight changes when changing implant strategies compared to what they are doing know. For example if steers are being implanted with Ral/Rev-S and they switch to Rev-IS/Rev-S you can expect the IS/RS cattle to weigh more (25 lbs) to reach equal fatness. These numbers should be used as a guide not absolute to help manage implant strategies and how they effect finished weight and the impact on quality grade.Weight @28% EBF is the adjusted final weight using carcass measurements to adjust the final shrunk body weight to a equal fat endpoint. Data presented in this slide demonstrates that as we increase anabolic dose we increase the weight required for obtaining an equal body fat endpoint. The data separated itself out into 5 categories that are statistically different. Control = category 1, Rev-IS and Comp-ES=category 2, Rev-S 1x and Ralgro/Rev-S = category 3, etc. The different superscripts indicate a difference of (P<.01). The key to using this data is what producers can expect in finished weight changes when changing implant strategies compared to what they are doing know. For example if steers are being implanted with Ral/Rev-S and they switch to Rev-IS/Rev-S you can expect the IS/RS cattle to weigh more (25 lbs) to reach equal fatness. These numbers should be used as a guide not absolute to help manage implant strategies and how they effect finished weight and the impact on quality grade.

    21. Implant effect on energy efficiency After accounting for BW and composition of gain: Implanted Steers Apparent diet ME values were increased 4.2% Implanted Heifers Apparent diet ME values were increased 3.1% Feed efficiency is calculated is the change in ME metabolizable energy in the diet. In other words do implants increase the energy value of the diet. An increase in diet ME tells us that we are getting more energy out of the diet. Steers implanted improved diet ME for steers by 4.2% and heifers were increased by 3.1% after accounting for composition and body weight. This can be due to several reasons: The energy consumed is used more efficiently utilized by the animal for gain. Maintenance requirement is reduced by implants leaving more energy available for gain. Reduced energy content of gain (more protein/less fat in gain).Feed efficiency is calculated is the change in ME metabolizable energy in the diet. In other words do implants increase the energy value of the diet. An increase in diet ME tells us that we are getting more energy out of the diet. Steers implanted improved diet ME for steers by 4.2% and heifers were increased by 3.1% after accounting for composition and body weight. This can be due to several reasons: The energy consumed is used more efficiently utilized by the animal for gain. Maintenance requirement is reduced by implants leaving more energy available for gain. Reduced energy content of gain (more protein/less fat in gain).

    22. Conclusion After accounting for body weight and body composition implants improve diet energy utilization. Implant response is due to a combination of a reduced proportion of the DMI required for maintenance, reduced energy content of gain and efficiency of use of absorbed energy.

    23. Overall Summary Implants with increasing anabolic dose increase the finished weight of cattle at a common fat endpoint. Implants improve apparent diet ME over non implanted cattle adjusted for body weight and composition of gain. Implanted cattle can be expected to reach low choice at the same fatness as non-implanted cattle. Understanding the effects different implant strategies have on changing finished weight will allow us to exploit more aggressive implant programs to increase pounds while maintaining quality grade as well as help explain why sometimes cattle do not reach an expected quality grade because of leanness. In steers this information is important to understand when trying to hit specific carcass weight parameters. In heifers this information demonstrates that we can use aggressive implant strategies to increase finished weight without having a negative effect on quality grade. This data demonstrates that implant programs change the weight needed to reach a certain fatness and that implants do not change the amount of body fat needed to reach low choice. Understanding the effects different implant strategies have on changing finished weight will allow us to exploit more aggressive implant programs to increase pounds while maintaining quality grade as well as help explain why sometimes cattle do not reach an expected quality grade because of leanness. In steers this information is important to understand when trying to hit specific carcass weight parameters. In heifers this information demonstrates that we can use aggressive implant strategies to increase finished weight without having a negative effect on quality grade. This data demonstrates that implant programs change the weight needed to reach a certain fatness and that implants do not change the amount of body fat needed to reach low choice.

More Related