Journal of Animal Science · 1994 · 32 citations · 0 references
Veterinary MedicineVeterinary Preventive MedicineBeef Cattle MedicineLactationRuminant MedicineHeifer ManagementImplant SelectionFeed Efficiency TestingHeifer Feed EfficiencyHeifer GrowthHeifer NutritionHeifer Performance MonitoringHeifer Rearing SystemsLactation Feed EfficiencyPostweaning Nutrition
Studies were conducted using 72 (Exp. 1) and 248 (Exp. 2) steer and heifer calves from 1 to 2 mo of age through slaughter to determine whether preweaning implants affect postweaning feed conversion of cattle that are rapidly grown and(or) finished in the feedlot. In Exp. 1, treatments were three Synovex® ( S ) implants administered 0, 70, and 140 d postweaning (NSSS) or Synovex-C® (C) administered preweaning and three implants administered postweaning (CSSS). In Exp. 2, treatments were no implants (NNNN), implants administered 0, 74, and 148 d postweaning to calves that had either received no preweaning implant (NSSS), or C (CSSS), and CSSS plus trenbolone acetate (TBA) administered with the last S implant (CSSS-TBA). Synovex-S® or -H® implants were administered postweaning to steers and heifers, respectively. Steer and heifer calves implanted with C in the preweaning phase were 9.0 and 13.0 kg (Exp. 1) and 7.5 and 15.0 kg (Exp. 2) heavier (P < .10), respectively, at weaning than nonimplanted steer and heifer calves. In Exp. 1, preweaning implant had no affect on postweaning performance or quality grade. In Exp. 2, preweaning implants (NSSS vs CSSS) decreased (P < .10) steer postweaning gains, whereas postweaning implants (NSSS vs NNNN) increased (P < .10) DM intake; however, feed:gain ratio was not affected by implant strategy. Heifers in Exp. 2 that received implants had greater postweaning (P < .10) DM intakes and daily gains than heifers not receiving implants (NNNN); however, feed:gain ratios among treatment groups were unaffected. Using TBA as a terminal implant in combination with S did not affect finishing period gains, feed:gain ratios, or carcass quality of steers or heifers compared with steers and heifers receiving only S. Implants decreased (P < .10) quality grade and percentage of carcasses grading Choice and Prime (Exp. 2). We conclude that preweaning implants had no influence on postweaning feed efficiency of cattle that are rapidly grown or finished directly after weaning.