Effect of nursing-calf implant timing on growth performance and carcass characteristics 1

The objective of this study was to compare pre- and postweaning growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality attributes of calves that did not receive an implant or were implanted early or late in the nursing period. Crossbred steer calves (n = 135) were stratified by birth date and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2017-12, Vol.95 (12), p.5388-5396
Hauptverfasser: Webb, M J, Harty, A A, Salverson, R R, Kincheloe, J J, Zuelly, S M S, Underwood, K R, Luebbe, M K, Olson, K C, Blair, A D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 5396
container_issue 12
container_start_page 5388
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 95
creator Webb, M J
Harty, A A
Salverson, R R
Kincheloe, J J
Zuelly, S M S
Underwood, K R
Luebbe, M K
Olson, K C
Blair, A D
description The objective of this study was to compare pre- and postweaning growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality attributes of calves that did not receive an implant or were implanted early or late in the nursing period. Crossbred steer calves (n = 135) were stratified by birth date and birth weight and randomly assigned to the following implant treatments: control (CON; no preweaning implant), 58 d (EARLY; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average of 58 ± 13 d of age), and 121 d (LATE; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average 121 ± 13 d of age). After weaning, steers were blocked by initial feed yard BW to 15 pens (5 pens/treatment and 9 steers/pen). All steers were implanted on d 21 after arrival at the feed yard and again on d 108 of finishing. Steer BW and ultrasound assessment of rib eye area (uREA), rib fat thickness (uRFT), and percent intramuscular fat (uIMF) were collected when implants were administered, at weaning, and on harvest day. Carcass measurements included HCW, rib eye area (REA), 12th-rib fat thickness (FT), and marbling score. Objective color (L*, a*, and b*) was recorded, and a 3.8-cm strip loin section was removed from both sides of each carcass and portioned into 2.54-cm steaks that were aged for 3 or 14 d for analysis of cook loss and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF). The remaining portion of each sample was used for analysis of moisture and crude fat. Steer BW, ADG, and G:F did not differ among treatments (P > 0.05). Steers implanted in the EARLY treatment had a greater (P < 0.05) cumulative DMI than CON but were not different from steers implanted in the LATE treatment. Ultrasound REA and uRFT (averaged across all collection days) did not differ (P > 0.05); however, steers on the CON treatment had a greater (P ≤ 0.05) percent uIMF than EARLY implanted steers, whereas steers receiving the LATE implant were intermediate and not different from the other treatments. Hot carcass weight, REA, FT, USDA yield grade, marbling score, and objective color did not differ (P > 0.05) among treatments. The proportion of steers in each USDA yield and quality grade was similar (P > 0.05) among treatments, and no differences were detected for total carcass value or price per 45.4 kg (hundredweight; P > 0.05). Treatment did not influence (P > 0.05) percent cook loss, crude fat, moisture, or WBSF. In conclusion, administering a nursing implant, regardless of timing, did not influence live performance, carcass characteristics, or meat
doi_str_mv 10.2527/jas2017.1633
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1984369468</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1984369468</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_19843694683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNij1OxDAQRi0EEuGn4wAjUWfx2OtsUqNFHICGajUy9q6jxA4zjrg-KTgA1af33qfUE-qdcebwMpIYjYcddtZeqQadca3d4Fo1Whts-x7NrboTGbVG4wbXqM9jjMFXKBHyypLyufU0RUjzMlGuUNO8OSgZzlx-6gWWwLHwTNkHoPwFntiTCPgLMfkaOElNXgAf1E2kScLj396r57fjx-t7u3D5XoPU01hWzls64dDvbTfsu97-7_ULPclIfw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1984369468</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of nursing-calf implant timing on growth performance and carcass characteristics 1</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Webb, M J ; Harty, A A ; Salverson, R R ; Kincheloe, J J ; Zuelly, S M S ; Underwood, K R ; Luebbe, M K ; Olson, K C ; Blair, A D</creator><creatorcontrib>Webb, M J ; Harty, A A ; Salverson, R R ; Kincheloe, J J ; Zuelly, S M S ; Underwood, K R ; Luebbe, M K ; Olson, K C ; Blair, A D</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study was to compare pre- and postweaning growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality attributes of calves that did not receive an implant or were implanted early or late in the nursing period. Crossbred steer calves (n = 135) were stratified by birth date and birth weight and randomly assigned to the following implant treatments: control (CON; no preweaning implant), 58 d (EARLY; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average of 58 ± 13 d of age), and 121 d (LATE; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average 121 ± 13 d of age). After weaning, steers were blocked by initial feed yard BW to 15 pens (5 pens/treatment and 9 steers/pen). All steers were implanted on d 21 after arrival at the feed yard and again on d 108 of finishing. Steer BW and ultrasound assessment of rib eye area (uREA), rib fat thickness (uRFT), and percent intramuscular fat (uIMF) were collected when implants were administered, at weaning, and on harvest day. Carcass measurements included HCW, rib eye area (REA), 12th-rib fat thickness (FT), and marbling score. Objective color (L*, a*, and b*) was recorded, and a 3.8-cm strip loin section was removed from both sides of each carcass and portioned into 2.54-cm steaks that were aged for 3 or 14 d for analysis of cook loss and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF). The remaining portion of each sample was used for analysis of moisture and crude fat. Steer BW, ADG, and G:F did not differ among treatments (P &gt; 0.05). Steers implanted in the EARLY treatment had a greater (P &lt; 0.05) cumulative DMI than CON but were not different from steers implanted in the LATE treatment. Ultrasound REA and uRFT (averaged across all collection days) did not differ (P &gt; 0.05); however, steers on the CON treatment had a greater (P ≤ 0.05) percent uIMF than EARLY implanted steers, whereas steers receiving the LATE implant were intermediate and not different from the other treatments. Hot carcass weight, REA, FT, USDA yield grade, marbling score, and objective color did not differ (P &gt; 0.05) among treatments. The proportion of steers in each USDA yield and quality grade was similar (P &gt; 0.05) among treatments, and no differences were detected for total carcass value or price per 45.4 kg (hundredweight; P &gt; 0.05). Treatment did not influence (P &gt; 0.05) percent cook loss, crude fat, moisture, or WBSF. In conclusion, administering a nursing implant, regardless of timing, did not influence live performance, carcass characteristics, or meat quality of steers fed in this study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jas2017.1633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Beef ; Birth weight ; Calves ; Cattle ; Color ; Factory orders ; Implants ; Meat ; Meat quality ; Moisture ; Nursing ; Pens ; Quality management ; Ultrasound ; Urea ; Weaning ; Zeranol</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2017-12, Vol.95 (12), p.5388-5396</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Dec 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Webb, M J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harty, A A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salverson, R R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kincheloe, J J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuelly, S M S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Underwood, K R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luebbe, M K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, K C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blair, A D</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of nursing-calf implant timing on growth performance and carcass characteristics 1</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>The objective of this study was to compare pre- and postweaning growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality attributes of calves that did not receive an implant or were implanted early or late in the nursing period. Crossbred steer calves (n = 135) were stratified by birth date and birth weight and randomly assigned to the following implant treatments: control (CON; no preweaning implant), 58 d (EARLY; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average of 58 ± 13 d of age), and 121 d (LATE; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average 121 ± 13 d of age). After weaning, steers were blocked by initial feed yard BW to 15 pens (5 pens/treatment and 9 steers/pen). All steers were implanted on d 21 after arrival at the feed yard and again on d 108 of finishing. Steer BW and ultrasound assessment of rib eye area (uREA), rib fat thickness (uRFT), and percent intramuscular fat (uIMF) were collected when implants were administered, at weaning, and on harvest day. Carcass measurements included HCW, rib eye area (REA), 12th-rib fat thickness (FT), and marbling score. Objective color (L*, a*, and b*) was recorded, and a 3.8-cm strip loin section was removed from both sides of each carcass and portioned into 2.54-cm steaks that were aged for 3 or 14 d for analysis of cook loss and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF). The remaining portion of each sample was used for analysis of moisture and crude fat. Steer BW, ADG, and G:F did not differ among treatments (P &gt; 0.05). Steers implanted in the EARLY treatment had a greater (P &lt; 0.05) cumulative DMI than CON but were not different from steers implanted in the LATE treatment. Ultrasound REA and uRFT (averaged across all collection days) did not differ (P &gt; 0.05); however, steers on the CON treatment had a greater (P ≤ 0.05) percent uIMF than EARLY implanted steers, whereas steers receiving the LATE implant were intermediate and not different from the other treatments. Hot carcass weight, REA, FT, USDA yield grade, marbling score, and objective color did not differ (P &gt; 0.05) among treatments. The proportion of steers in each USDA yield and quality grade was similar (P &gt; 0.05) among treatments, and no differences were detected for total carcass value or price per 45.4 kg (hundredweight; P &gt; 0.05). Treatment did not influence (P &gt; 0.05) percent cook loss, crude fat, moisture, or WBSF. In conclusion, administering a nursing implant, regardless of timing, did not influence live performance, carcass characteristics, or meat quality of steers fed in this study.</description><subject>Beef</subject><subject>Birth weight</subject><subject>Calves</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Color</subject><subject>Factory orders</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Meat</subject><subject>Meat quality</subject><subject>Moisture</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pens</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Urea</subject><subject>Weaning</subject><subject>Zeranol</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNij1OxDAQRi0EEuGn4wAjUWfx2OtsUqNFHICGajUy9q6jxA4zjrg-KTgA1af33qfUE-qdcebwMpIYjYcddtZeqQadca3d4Fo1Whts-x7NrboTGbVG4wbXqM9jjMFXKBHyypLyufU0RUjzMlGuUNO8OSgZzlx-6gWWwLHwTNkHoPwFntiTCPgLMfkaOElNXgAf1E2kScLj396r57fjx-t7u3D5XoPU01hWzls64dDvbTfsu97-7_ULPclIfw</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Webb, M J</creator><creator>Harty, A A</creator><creator>Salverson, R R</creator><creator>Kincheloe, J J</creator><creator>Zuelly, S M S</creator><creator>Underwood, K R</creator><creator>Luebbe, M K</creator><creator>Olson, K C</creator><creator>Blair, A D</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Effect of nursing-calf implant timing on growth performance and carcass characteristics 1</title><author>Webb, M J ; Harty, A A ; Salverson, R R ; Kincheloe, J J ; Zuelly, S M S ; Underwood, K R ; Luebbe, M K ; Olson, K C ; Blair, A D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_19843694683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Beef</topic><topic>Birth weight</topic><topic>Calves</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Color</topic><topic>Factory orders</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Meat</topic><topic>Meat quality</topic><topic>Moisture</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pens</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Urea</topic><topic>Weaning</topic><topic>Zeranol</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Webb, M J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harty, A A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salverson, R R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kincheloe, J J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuelly, S M S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Underwood, K R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luebbe, M K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, K C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blair, A D</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Webb, M J</au><au>Harty, A A</au><au>Salverson, R R</au><au>Kincheloe, J J</au><au>Zuelly, S M S</au><au>Underwood, K R</au><au>Luebbe, M K</au><au>Olson, K C</au><au>Blair, A D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of nursing-calf implant timing on growth performance and carcass characteristics 1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>5388</spage><epage>5396</epage><pages>5388-5396</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>The objective of this study was to compare pre- and postweaning growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality attributes of calves that did not receive an implant or were implanted early or late in the nursing period. Crossbred steer calves (n = 135) were stratified by birth date and birth weight and randomly assigned to the following implant treatments: control (CON; no preweaning implant), 58 d (EARLY; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average of 58 ± 13 d of age), and 121 d (LATE; 36 mg zeranol, administered at an average 121 ± 13 d of age). After weaning, steers were blocked by initial feed yard BW to 15 pens (5 pens/treatment and 9 steers/pen). All steers were implanted on d 21 after arrival at the feed yard and again on d 108 of finishing. Steer BW and ultrasound assessment of rib eye area (uREA), rib fat thickness (uRFT), and percent intramuscular fat (uIMF) were collected when implants were administered, at weaning, and on harvest day. Carcass measurements included HCW, rib eye area (REA), 12th-rib fat thickness (FT), and marbling score. Objective color (L*, a*, and b*) was recorded, and a 3.8-cm strip loin section was removed from both sides of each carcass and portioned into 2.54-cm steaks that were aged for 3 or 14 d for analysis of cook loss and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF). The remaining portion of each sample was used for analysis of moisture and crude fat. Steer BW, ADG, and G:F did not differ among treatments (P &gt; 0.05). Steers implanted in the EARLY treatment had a greater (P &lt; 0.05) cumulative DMI than CON but were not different from steers implanted in the LATE treatment. Ultrasound REA and uRFT (averaged across all collection days) did not differ (P &gt; 0.05); however, steers on the CON treatment had a greater (P ≤ 0.05) percent uIMF than EARLY implanted steers, whereas steers receiving the LATE implant were intermediate and not different from the other treatments. Hot carcass weight, REA, FT, USDA yield grade, marbling score, and objective color did not differ (P &gt; 0.05) among treatments. The proportion of steers in each USDA yield and quality grade was similar (P &gt; 0.05) among treatments, and no differences were detected for total carcass value or price per 45.4 kg (hundredweight; P &gt; 0.05). Treatment did not influence (P &gt; 0.05) percent cook loss, crude fat, moisture, or WBSF. In conclusion, administering a nursing implant, regardless of timing, did not influence live performance, carcass characteristics, or meat quality of steers fed in this study.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/jas2017.1633</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2017-12, Vol.95 (12), p.5388-5396
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1984369468
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Beef
Birth weight
Calves
Cattle
Color
Factory orders
Implants
Meat
Meat quality
Moisture
Nursing
Pens
Quality management
Ultrasound
Urea
Weaning
Zeranol
title Effect of nursing-calf implant timing on growth performance and carcass characteristics 1
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T06%3A15%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20nursing-calf%20implant%20timing%20on%20growth%20performance%20and%20carcass%20characteristics%201&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Webb,%20M%20J&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=5388&rft.epage=5396&rft.pages=5388-5396&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jas2017.1633&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1984369468%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1984369468&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true