Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:23:45.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of implantation with hormonal growth promoters on the response in the performance of beef cattle to protein supplementation of a silage-based diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 2DR
Get access

Abstract

An experiment has been carried out to examine the effects of implantation with hormonal growth promoters on the response in the performance of castrated male cattle (steers) to protein supplementation of a silage-based diet. The treatments consisted of grass silage offered ad libitum and supplemented with 2·7 kg per head daily of either a low protein (LP, 114 g crude protein per kg dry matter (DM)) or a high protein (HP, 206 g crude protein per kg DM) concentrate. Half of the animals, given each of the two concentrates were implanted with 20 mg oestradiol plus 200 mg progesterone and 300 mg trenbolone acetate at the beginning of the experiment and after 77 days, while the remainder of the animals received no implant, giving four treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Sixty-four British Friesian and Simmental cross steers which were initially 426 (s.e. 3·5) kg live weight were used. The treatments were imposed for 157 days. The silage used was well preserved and of high digestibility. For LP and HP concentrates given to non-implanted animals and LP and HP given to implanted animals respectively silage DM intakes were 5·7, 5·8, 6·3 and 6·6 (s.e. 0·18) kg/day; live-weight gains 0·96, 0·92, 1·22 and 1·33 (s.e. 0·045) kg/day; carcass gains 0·58, 0·53, 0·78 and 0·81 (s.e. 0·024) kg/day; carcass subcutaneous fat depth 6·0, 6·5, 5·8 and 5·5 (s.e. 0·35) mm; areas of m. longissimus dorsi 69·1, 58·5, 69·6 and 74·7 (s.e. 1·91) cm2 and marbling scores 3·0, 3·6, 3·3 and 3·1 (s.e. 0·25). It is concluded that protein supplementation of well preserved grass silage produced a marginal increase in the performance of implanted finishing steers but did not affect carcass fatness. With non-implanted steers protein supplementation produced a marginal depression in performance and increased carcass fatness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 21 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. Recommended Procedures for Use in the Measurement of Beef Cattle and Carcasses. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. 1973. Supplementation of silage with protein for beef cattle. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 8: 31–41.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. 1983. Supplementary concentrates for young fattening bulls fed silage. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. and Keane, M. G. 1985. Concentrates for unimplanted and implanted fattening steers fed Silage. An Foras Talúntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. 1965. Nutritional status and intake regulation in sheep. II. The influence of sustained duodenal infusions of casein or urea upon voluntary intake of low-protein roughages by sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, P. and Gill, M. 1985. The effect of fish meal and sucrose supplementation on the voluntary intake of grass silage and live-weight gain of young cattle. Animal Production 40: 259–265.Google Scholar
Gill, M. F., Beever, D. E., Buttery, P. J. and Baker, R. D. 1985. The effect of oestradiol implantation on the response to fishmeal in calves offered silage. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 44: 115A (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcase grading and classification. In Carcass Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing, pp. 163–201, Granada, London.Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Chalmers, A. J. and Hannam, D. A. R. 1983. Fish meal supplementation of grass silage diets for fattening British Friesian steers. Animal Production 36: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Outhwaite, J. R. and Jones, T. O. 1984. A comparison of two types of fish meal as protein supplements for finishing British Friesian steers given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 38: 551 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Outhwaite, J. R. and Jones, T. O. 1985. A comparison of formaldehyde-treated soya bean meal and fish meal as protein supplements for finishing beef cattle given grass silage. Animal Production 40: 552 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Neilson, D. R. and Hunter, E. A. 1985. The effect of growth promoters on fattening cattle:growth, intake and carcass composition. Animal Production 40: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
McDonald, P. and Edwards, R. A. 1976. The influence of conservation methods on digestion and utilisation of forages by ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35: 201–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, T. G., Perry, T. W., Beeson, W. M. and Mohler, M. T. 1978. Protein levels for bulls: comparison of three continuous dietary levels on growth and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 47: 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, J. F. 1980. The use of growth promoters in beef cattle. In The Uses, Residues and Toxicology of Growth Promoters. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1985a. Protein supplementation of silage-based diets for calves. Animal Production 41: 293–300.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1985b. A comparison of bulls and steers impanted with various oestrogenic growth promoters in a 15-month semi-intensive system of beef production. Animal Production 41: 301–308.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1986. Effects of protein supplementation of silage-based diets on the intake, performance and carcass composition of finishing beef cattle. Animal Producation 42: 439 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1988. The effect of supplementing silage-based diets with soya-bean and fish meals for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 46: 43–51.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1982. The utilization of silage protein. In Forage Protein Conservation and Utilization, Commisson of the European Communities Seminar, Dublin, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, A., Laird, R. and Holliday, R. J. 1983. A response to protein supplementation of grass silage for growing and finishing cattle. Animal Production 36: 503 (Abstr.).Google Scholar