Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:21:36.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field trials on hexoestrol implantation of steers on New Zealand farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. C. Everitt  and
A. H. Carter
G. C. Everitt
Affiliation:
Ruakura Animal Research Station, Hamilton, New Zealand
A. H. Carter
Affiliation:
Ruakura Animal Research Station, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Field trials on hexoestrol implantation were conducted in the Waikato area of the North Island of New Zealand during 1958–59, involving 260 two and three year old Aberdeen Angus steers from nine farms. Two levels of hormone implantation were studied, namely, 30 and 45 mg. The trials ranged in duration from three to five months with an average of four months.

Pronounced differences were apparent between farms in the overall growth rates and carcass quality scores of the cattle.

Hexoestrol implantation led to a significant increase in carcass weight, estimated at approximately 22 lb., with little evidence of real differences between farms in the average response to the hormone.

Response to the higher as compared with the lower dose of hexoestrol varied markedly among the separate farms. In general, the lower dose of 30 mg. tended to yield the greater increase in carcass weight.

A small, but consistent, depression of carcass quality scores was manifest under hormone treatment, with no real differences between the two dosage levels.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 1963 , pp. 87 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

REFERENCES

Bonniwell, B. A., Tribe, D. E. & Wardrop, I. D. (1958). J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 24, 358.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. & Finney, D. J. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 53, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casida, L. E., Andrews, F. H., Bogart, R., Clegg, M. T. & Nalbandov, A. B. (1959). Hormonal Relationships and Applications in the Production of Meats, Milk and Eggs. Nat. Acad. Sci—Nat. Res. Council Publ. no. 714.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, H. V. & McNeil, R. W. (1958). J. Agric. S. Aust. 61, 561.Google Scholar
Davenport, N. & Neil, G. H. (1959). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 8, 212.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1960). J. Roy. Agric. Soc. 121, 192.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1959). Proc. Ruakura Farmers' Conf., p. 25.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1961 a). Proc. Ruakura Farmers' Conf., p. 85.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1961 b). Bull. Inst. Meat, 31, 2.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1962). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. & Caster, A. H. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. C. (1958 a). Wool Tech. Sheep breed. 5, 41.Google Scholar
Franklin, M. C. (1958 b). Roneod Report for 9th Meet. Tech. Sub-committee on Beef Cattle Product., Queensland; July.Google Scholar
Kneebone, H., Marks, T., McMeekan, C. P. & Walker, D. E. (1950). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 31, 4.Google Scholar
Lamond, D. R. (1961). Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 1, 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, J. F. & Cannon, D. J. (1958). J. Dep. Agric. Victoria, 56, 155.Google Scholar
Pryor, W. J. & Hart, B. (1961). Aust. Vet. J. 37, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. G. C. (1958). Agric. Rev. 3, 29.Google Scholar
Stephens, W. H. & Thompson, D. S. (1952). Tasmanian J. agric. 23, 291.Google Scholar
Williams, L. G. (1958). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2, 104.Google Scholar