Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:08:50.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the response to sequential implantation with zeranol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. G. Lowman,
N. A. Scott and
S. A. Mackison
B. G. Lowman
Affiliation:
East of Scotland College of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
N. A. Scott
Affiliation:
East of Scotland College of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
S. A. Mackison
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT
Get access

Abstract

Two farm trials were made to investigate the response to a second implant with the anabolic agent zeranol. Seventy cattle were implanted at the start of the growing period, at 10 to 12 months of age, the remaining 49 cattle being left as controls. Five months later, at the beginning of the fattening period, some cattle from each of the treatments during the growing period were implanted. The response to implantation in both periods was significant on both farms (P<0·05). During the fattening period there was no significant difference in the performance of cattle implanted only at the start of the growing period and that of the control animals, which suggested that the response to the earlier implant was permanent. Although differences in performance during fattening for cattle implanted twice, compared with that for cattle implanted for the first time at the start of fattening, were not statistically significant, on both farms performance was lower for the cattle implanted twice. These results suggest that the response to zeranol in the fattening period may be reduced by approximately 0·30 for cattle previously implanted. Over the combined growing and fattening period, cattle implanted twice showed a significant response in comparison with cattle given only one implant (P < 0·05).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , December 1982, pp. 431 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. 1977. Performances of March born Friesian steers treated once, twice, three or four times with Zeranol. Results of Experiments at the Experimental Husbandry Farms, Vol. 25, Part 6, Beef Cattle, pp. 111–116.Google Scholar
Corah, L. R., Plegge, S. D. and Francis, G. 1980. Effects of location and crushing Ralgro implants on cattle performance. Kans. St. Rep. Prog., pp. 68–70.Google Scholar
Loy, D. D., Harpster, H. W. and Cash, E. H. 1981. Effects of Ralgro® re-implant and diet energy level on growth in beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 53: Suppl. 1, pp. 414–415 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Moorhouse, D. G. 1979. Growth promoting implants for beef—something for nothing? A. Rev. Dray ton exp. Husb. Fm, pp. 31–35.Google Scholar
Perry, T. W., Stob, M., Huber, D. A. and Peterson, R. C. 1970. Effect of subcutaneous implantation of resorcyclic acid lactone on performance of growing and finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 31: 789–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, J. F. 1978. Use of anabolic compounds to increase growth rate in beef cattle. Anim. Prod. Res. Rep., 1976, pp. 46–47. An Foras Taliintais, Dublin.Google Scholar
Roche, J. F. 1980. The use of growth promoters in beef cattle. In Proc. Conf. Use Residues Toxic. Growth Promoters, Dublin, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Scott, B. M. 1978. The use of growth promoting implants in beef production. A.D.A.S. Quarterly Review, pp. 185–216.Google Scholar