Effects of delayed implant protocols on performance, carcass characteristics and meat tenderness in Holstein steers J. L. Beckett, and J. Algeo Cal Poly State University Algeo Consulting
Effects of delayed implant protocols on performance,
carcass characteristics and meat tenderness in Holstein steers
J. L. Beckett, and J. Algeo
Cal Poly State University
Algeo Consulting
Strategies
Approximately 20 implants approved for use in cattle
Tremendous number of combinations possible
Producers need to establish strategies that best utilize the advantages of the different implants
Long-fed cattle are particularly subjected to repetitive implant regimens
Effects
Increase frame size– Increases growth curve
Decrease quality grade– Lower % Choice– Due to change in physiological endpoint
Increases muscling Effect on tenderness?
Implant Protocol
No Implant
Ralgro Revalor-S
Revalor-S
Revalor-S
Synovex-C Syn-S
Rev-IS
Rev-ISRevalor-G
0 60 120 180 291
Tre
atm
ent G
roup
s
A
B
C
D
E
Ralgro Syn-S
Revalor-S
Synovex-C
Average Daily Gain
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
RA/RA/S/Rev C/S/Rev C/IS/Rev G/IS/Rev None
Dai
ly G
ain
(kg)
ab
b b
a
c
Final Weight
500
520
540
560
580
600
620K
ilogr
ams
ab
b b
a
c
Gain to Feed
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
RA/RA/S/Rev C/S/Rev C/IS/Rev G/IS/Rev None
Treatment Group
aa
a a
b
Percentages of Holstein steer carcasses grading USDA Choice or better
57%
51%
39%
27%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Per
cen
t
a
b
ab
a
a
RA/RA/S/Rev C/S/Rev C/IS/Rev G/IS/Rev None
USDA Yield Grade
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
2.95
3
3.05
3.1
RA/RA/S/Rev C/S/Rev C/IS/Rev G/IS/Rev None
Treatment Group
Yie
ld G
rad
e
Project Summary
Goal: Identify the time that implants can be initiated to:– Capture maximal growth and performance– Minimize detrimental effects on product
186 steers on feed for 280 d– Initial weight 156 kg
Weighed every 30 daysAt the end of the feeding
phase, animals were harvested and carcass data collected
Diet
Item Starter Ration
Finisher Ration
Starter supplement 15.3 0
Finisher supplement 0 13
Alfalfa 24.16 12
Corn, steam flaked 50 65
Fat, YG 3 4
Cane Molasses 5 6
Soybean meal, 47% CP 2.54 0
Total 100 100
Percent
Average Finishing Ration Analysis
Dry matter 84% Crude Protein 12.79% NEg 1.23 Mcal/kg
NEm 1.95 Mcal/kg
Experimental Protocol
1 2 3 4 5 6
0 - 60 61 - 120 121 - 180 181 - 210 211 - 300 Slaughter
9/10/2000 11/9/2000 1/8/2001 3/9/2001 4/8/2001 6/22/2001
Ralgro Rev-IS Rev-S
Rev-IS Rev-S
Ralgro Ralgro Rev-S
Ralgro Rev-S
None
Treatment
A
E
B
D
C
Days
Tmt period
Interval (days)
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
RA/IS/R
ev
N/IS/R
ev
N/RA/R
A/Rev
N/N/R
A/Rev
None
Kilo
gram
s
a
aa
a
b
Final Weight
Average Daily Gain
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
RA/IS/R
ev
N/IS/R
ev
N/RA/R
A/Rev
N/N/R
A/Rev
None
Gai
n/da
y (k
g)
aa
a
a
b
Feed to Gain
0.184
0.186
0.188
0.19
0.192
0.194
0.196
0.198
0.2
RA/IS/Rev N/IS/Rev N/RA/RA/Rev N/N/RA/Rev None
Treatment Group
bc
ab
abc
a
c
Longissimus Muscle Area
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
LMA
(cm
2 )
a
a a a
b
58%53%
32%27%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Per
cent
RA/IS/Rev N/IS/Rev N/RA/RA/Rev N/N/RA/Rev None
Percentages of Holstein steer carcasses grading USDA Choice or better
abc
cbc
aba
USDA Yield Grade
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
RA/IS/Rev N/IS/Rev N/RA/RA/Rev N/N/RA/Rev None
Treatment Group
Yie
ld G
rad
e
Meat
Ribs aged for 14 days 2 steaks from each rib were removed,
individually vacuum packed Steaks sent to Colorado State
University CSU measured tenderness (shear
force) and conducted trained taste panel
Warner-Bratzler Shear Force
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
RA/IS/Rev N/IS/Rev N/RA/RA/Rev N/N/RA/Rev None
Fo
rce
(kg
)
WB Shear Force over 5
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
RA/IS/Rev N/IS/Rev N/RA/RA/Rev N/N/RA/Rev None
Per
cent
Trained Taste Panel
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6
RA/IS/Rev N/IS/Rev N/RA/RA/Rev N/N/RA/Rev None
Te
nd
ern
es
s (
1-8
)
ab ab
bcc
a
Summary
Early implants dramatically influence marbling at a given weight
Delaying implants tend to improve marbling without significant effects on growth & efficiency
Aggressive nature of implant strategy should complement the market
Variations in tenderness can not be explained by the use of implants
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Pr- Ch+ Ch Ch- Se100 Se60 Se30 Std
Perc
ent E
mpt
y Bo
dy F
at
Percent Empty Body Fat
Percent Empty Body Fat
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
A B C D E
Em
pty
Bod
y Fa
t (%
)
a
abab
bb
480
500
520
540
560
580
A B C D E
Adju
sted
Fin
al B
ody
Wei
ght (
kg)
Adjusted Final Body Weight
480
500
520
540
560
580
A B C D E
Adju
sted
Fin
al B
ody
Wei
ght (
kg)
a
aa
a
b
0
20
40
60
A B C D E
Diff
eren
ce in
AF
BW
(kg
)AFBW from nonimplanted
Controls