J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mader, T. L.
Right arrow Articles by Klopfenstein, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mader, T. L.
Right arrow Articles by Klopfenstein, T. J.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 72, Issue 5 1095-1100, Copyright © 1994 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Effect of sequential implanting with Synovex on steer and heifer performance

T. L. Mader, J. M. Dahlquist, M. H. Sindt, R. A. Stock and T. J. Klopfenstein
University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center, Concord 68728.

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.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
K. R. Smith, S. K. Duckett, M. J. Azain, R. N. Sonon Jr., and T. D. Pringle
The effect of anabolic implants on intramuscular lipid deposition in finished beef cattle
J Anim Sci, February 1, 2007; 85(2): 430 - 440.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
W. J. Platter, J. D. Tatum, K. E. Belk, J. A. Scanga, and G. C. Smith
Effects of repetitive use of hormonal implants on beef carcass quality, tenderness, and consumer ratings of beef palatability
J Anim Sci, April 1, 2003; 81(4): 984 - 996.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
G. E. Aiken
Cost of Steer Weight Gain to Rate of Supplementation with Ground Corn on Bermudagrass Pasture
Agron. J., November 1, 2002; 94(6): 1387 - 1392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Society of Animal Science.