We summarized experimental data to quantify the change in final BW due to a particular implant strategy when cattle are adjusted to the same final body composition. The database developed for this study included 13 implant trials involving a total of 13,640 animals (9,052 steers and 4,588 heifers). Fifteen different implant strategies were used among these trials, including no implant (control), single implants, and combinations of implants. Individual carcass data collected at slaughter were used to calculate the adjusted final shrunk BW at 28% empty body fat (AFBW) for each treatment group within a trial, then the implant treatments were grouped into categories according to their effect on weight at 28% empty body fat (four groups for steers and two groups for heifers). All differences in AFBW between categories were significant (P < 0.01), indicating an incremental anabolic implant dose response in AFBW over unimplanted animals. Values for AFBW ranged from 520 kg in unimplanted steers to 564 kg in steers implanted and reimplanted with Revalor-S. For heifers, AFBW ranged from 493 kg in unimplanted heifers to 535 kg in heifers implanted and reimplanted with Revalor-H. After accounting for differences in mean BW and composition of gain, implanted steers and heifers had 4.2 and 3.1% higher apparent diet ME values, respectively. Increasing the anabolic implant dose increases the weight at which animals reach a common body composition. This study indicates that anabolic implant response is due to a combination of a reduced proportion of the DMI required for maintenance, reduced energy content of gain, and efficiency of use of absorbed energy.

An experiment was conducted using 200 beef carcasses to evaluate the effects of feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride with or without monensin and tylosin on carcass cutability and meat sensory variables. The experiment was conducted using a randomized complete block design with treatments arranged as a 2 (no zilpaterol vs. zilpaterol) x 2 (monensin and tylosin withdrawn vs. monensin and tylosin fed) factorial. Cattle (n=3,757) were fed zilpaterol hydrochloride, a beta(2)-adrenergic agonist, for 30 d at the end of the finishing period and withdrawn from zilpaterol hydrochloride for the last 5 d on feed. Five carcasses (weighing between 305 and 421 kg and free of slaughter defects) were selected from each of 40 feedlot treatment pens. Strip loins from the left sides were collected for sensory analysis and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) testing, and the rib was collected for 9th, 10th, 11th-rib dissections. A subsample of 3 carcass right sides per pen was fabricated into boneless subprimals according to Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications. Carcasses from zilpaterol-fed steers had greater (P or= 0.26). For the main effect of monensin and tylosin, withdrawal of monensin and tylosin decreased (P=0.01) consumer juiciness scores, although other yield and compositional measurements were not affected (P >or= 0.07). Zilpaterol is a strong repartitioning agent that increases meat yield through increased protein and decreased fat deposition.

Experiments were conducted at 3 US locations (CA, ID, and TX) to determine the effects of dietary zilpaterol hydrochloride (Zilmax, Intervet Inc., Millsboro, DE) and duration of zilpaterol feeding on performance and carcass merit of finishing steers and heifers. At each site, 160 steers and 160 heifers were stratified within sex by initial BW (study d -1) and assigned randomly within BW strata to 1 of 4 treatments in a randomized complete block design (4 blocks/treatment for each sex). The 4 treatments were arranged in a 2 (no zilpaterol vs. zilpaterol) x 2 (20 or 40 d duration of zilpaterol feeding) factorial arrangement of treatments. When included in the diet, zilpaterol was supplemented at 8.3 mg/kg of DM. Each pen consisted of 10 animals. Each animal was individually weighed unshrunk on d 1, 21 or 41, and 66 of the experiment. Following d 66, cattle were slaughtered and carcass data collected. Feeding zilpaterol increased (P<0.01) final BW of steers and heifers by 11.6 and 6.7 kg, respectively. In addition, feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride increased (P or= 0.12) and KPH (P >or= 0.70) were not affected by feeding zilpaterol to steers or heifers. Feeding zilpaterol decreased (i.e., improved; P=0.02) calculated yield grade of steer and heifer carcasses. Marbling score (P=0.002) and quality grade (P=0.002) were decreased when zilpaterol hydrochloride was fed to steers, and the decrease in marbling score and quality grade tended to be greater when zilpaterol was fed for 40 compared with 20 d (zilpaterol x duration interaction, P=0.07). For heifers, marbling score tended (P=0.07) to be decreased and quality grade was decreased (P=0.05) when zilpaterol hydrochloride was fed. In general, it appears from these data that zilpaterol hydrochloride fed for 20 to 40 d at the end of the finishing period enhances growth performance and carcass muscle deposition for steers and heifers.

Four trials, each with a randomized complete block design, were conducted with 8,647 beef steers (initial BW = 346 +/- 29.6 kg) in 3 different locations in the United States to evaluate the effects of zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH) on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. Treatments consisted of feeding ZH (8.33 mg/kg of dietary DM) for 0, 20, 30, or 40 d, at the end of the feeding period, followed by a 3-d withdrawal period before slaughter. Cattle were weighed on d 0 and 50 before slaughter (in 3 of the 4 studies), and on the day of slaughter. Data from the 4 trials were pooled for statistical analyses. No differences (P > or = 0.78) were detected among treatments for ADG and G:F from the start of the study until the final 50 d on feed. Final BW was greater for the average of the 3 ZH-treated groups (P < 0.01) than for the 0-d group. Average daily gain was greater for ZH-treated vs. control cattle during the final 50 d on feed (P < 0.01) and for the entire feeding period (P < 0.01). No differences in DMI were noted for any periods of the experiment (P > or = 0.42) for ZH-treated cattle vs. controls. No differences were noted for DMI among the ZH-treated groups for the final 50 d on feed (P = 0.81) or for the overall feeding period (P = 0.31). Feeding ZH for any length of time increased G:F (P < 0.01) for the final 50 d and overall compared with 0-d cattle. In addition, a linear increase with more days of ZH feeding was observed for G:F during the period that ZH was fed (P = 0.01), as well as for the overall feeding period (P = 0.01). The ZH-treated cattle had heavier HCW (P < 0.01), greater dressing percent (P < 0.01), reduced marbling scores (P < 0.01), less 12th-rib fat (P < 0.01), larger LM area (P < 0.01), less KPH (P = 0.01), and a lower USDA yield grade (P < 0.01) than the 0-d cattle, regardless of the duration of ZH feeding. Dressing percent increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increased duration of ZH feeding, whereas 12th-rib fat (P = 0.07), marbling scores (P < 0.01), and USDA calculated yield grade (P = 0.01) decreased linearly with increased duration of ZH feeding. Feeding ZH increased ADG and G:F and decreased overall carcass fatness. In addition, effects of ZH on measures of carcass fatness were enhanced by feeding the product for a greater length of time.

Our objective was to determine the effects of feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH), a beta-agonist, for the final 30 d of the feeding period, with or without a terminal estrogen + trenbolone acetate (TBA) implant (Revalor-S; 24 mg of estradiol-17beta and 120 mg of TBA; REV) on meat tenderness and carcass cutout yields. Crossbred steers (n = 2,279) were divided into 6 BW blocks and 24 pens. Within each block, pens were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) no terminal implant (control); 2) a terminal REV given 91 d before slaughter; 3) no terminal implant plus ZH; and 4) a terminal REV implant plus ZH (REV+ZH). All cattle received Component TE-IS (16 mg of estradiol and 80 mg of TBA) on d - 61 of the feeding period [corrected]. Zilpaterol hydrochloride was added to the diets at a concentration of 8.38 mg/kg (DM basis) during the final 30 d of the feeding period, followed by a 3-d period before slaughter in which ZH was withdrawn from the diet. Carcasses (n = 30/treatment) were selected from the 2,279 cattle and fabricated into subprimal cuts as per Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications. Strip loins were collected, cut into 2.54-cm steaks, and aged 7, 14, and 21 d, after which Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), collagen content, desmin degradation, and muscle fiber diameter measurements were determined. Feeding ZH increased (P < 0.05) yield of the #112A ribeye roll, #116B chuck mock tender, #167A peeled knuckle, #169 top inside round, #171B outside round, #171C eye of round, #180 strip loin, #184 top sirloin butt, and #189A full tenderloin for ZH treatment. Longissimus muscle WBSF at 7, 14, and 21 d postmortem was increased (P < 0.001) with ZH supplementation. Desmin degradation at 7, 14, and 21 d postmortem was not affected with REV or ZH supplementation compared with controls. Zilpaterol hydrochloride had an additive effect with REV on increasing LM fiber diameter (P < 0.001). When fed to cattle that received a terminal implant of REV, ZH potentially increased LM WBSF as a result of induced muscle hypertrophy. During the 21-d aging period, WBSF decreased with aging, suggesting that carcasses from cattle supplemented with ZH might require longer aging time to ensure that acceptable levels of tenderness are reached.

Our objectives were to evaluate the dose/payout pattern of trenbolone acetate (TBA) and estradiol-17β (E(2)) implants and feeding of zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH) on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef steers. A randomized complete block design was used with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. British × Continental steers (n = 168; initial BW = 362 kg) were blocked by BW and allotted randomly to 42 pens (7 pens/treatment; 6 pens/block; 4 steers/pen). The main effects of treatment were implant [no implant (NI); Revalor-S (REV-S; 120 mg of TBA + 24 mg of E(2)); and Revalor-XS (REV-X; 200 mg of TBA + 40 mg of E(2))] and ZH (0 or 8.3 mg/kg of DM for 20 d with a 3-d withdrawal before slaughter). Blocks were split into 2 groups, and block groups were fed for either 153 or 174 d. No implant × ZH interactions were noted for cumulative performance data. Overall, shrunk final BW (567, 606, and 624 kg for NI, REV-S, and REV-X, respectively), ADG (1.25, 1.51, and 1.60 kg), and G:F (0.14, 0.16, and 0.17) increased (P < 0.05) as TBA and E(2) dose increased. Implanting increased (P < 0.05) DMI, but DMI did not differ (P > 0.10) between REV-S and REV-X (8.8 for NI vs. 9.4 kg/d for the 2 implants). From d 1 to 112 of the feeding period, implanting increased (P < 0.05) ADG and G:F, but REV-S and REV-X did not differ (P > 0.10). From d 112 to end, ADG increased by 19% (P < 0.05) and G:F was 18% greater (P < 0.05) for REV-X vs. REV-S. Carcass-adjusted final BW (29-kg difference), ADG (0.2-kg/d difference), and G:F (0.02 difference) were increased (P < 0.05) by ZH, but daily DMI was not affected by feeding ZH. Hot carcass weight was increased (P < 0.05) by ZH (19-kg difference) and implant, with REV-X resulting in the greatest response (HCW of 376 for NI vs. 404 and 419 kg for REV-S and REV-X, respectively; P < 0.05). An implant × ZH interaction (P = 0.05) occurred for dressing percent (DP). Without ZH, implanting increased DP, but DP did not differ (P > 0.10) between REV-X and REV-S. With ZH, REV-X increased (1.7%; P < 0.05) DP vs. NI and REV-S. Marbling score, 12th-rib fat, and KPH were not affected (P > 0.10) by implant or ZH. Overall, treatment increased steer performance and HCW in an additive fashion, suggesting different mechanisms of action for ZH and steroidal implants. In addition, a greater dose of TBA + E(2) and extended payout improved steer performance and HCW.

British × Continental heifers (n = 3,382; initial BW = 307 kg) were serially slaughtered to determine if increasing days on the finishing diet (DOF) mitigates negative consequences of zilpaterol HCl (ZH) on quality grade and tenderness of beef. A 2 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments in a completely randomized block design (36 pens; 6 pens/treatment) was used. Zilpaterol HCl (8.33 mg/kg DM) was fed 0 and 20 to 22 d before slaughter plus a 3 to 5 d withdrawal to heifers spending 127, 148, and 167 DOF. Feedlot and carcass performance data were analyzed with pen as the experimental unit. Three hundred sixty carcasses (60 carcasses/treatment) were randomly subsampled, and strip loin steaks were aged for 7, 14, and 21 d for assessment of Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) and slice shear force (SSF) with carcass serving as the experimental unit for analysis. No relevant ZH × DOF interactions were detected (P > 0.05). Feeding ZH during the treatment period increased ADG by 9.5%, G:F by 12.5%, carcass ADG by 33.6%, carcass G:F by 35.9%, carcass ADG:live ADG by 15.6%, HCW by 3.2% (345 vs. 356 kg), dressing percent by 1.5%, and LM area by 6.5% and decreased 12th-rib fat by 5.2% and yield grade (YG) by 0.27 units (P < 0.01). Feeding ZH tended to decrease marbling score (437 vs. 442 units; P = 0.10) and increased WBSF at 7 (4.25 vs. 3.47 kg; P < 0.01), 14 (3.57 vs. 3.05 kg; P < 0.01), and 21 d (3.50 vs. 3.03 kg; P < 0.01). Feeding ZH decreased empty body fat percentage (EBF; 29.7% vs. 30.3%; P < 0.01) and increased 28% EBF adjusted final BW (473.4 vs. 449.8 kg; P < 0.01). Analysis of interactive means indicated that the ZH × 148 DOF group had a similar percentage of USDA Prime, Premium Choice, Low Choice, and YG 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 carcasses (P > 0.10) and decreased percentage of Select (30.4 vs. 36.6%; P = 0.03) and Standard (0.2 vs. 0.9%; P = 0.05) carcasses compared with the control × 127 DOF group. As a result of ZH shifting body composition, extending the DOF of beef heifers is an effective feeding strategy to equalize carcass grade distributions. This can be accomplished along with sustaining the ZH mediated advantages in feedlot and carcass weight gain.

A feedlot experiment was conducted under commercial conditions in the Texas Panhandle using 3,757 feedlot steers (average of 94 steers/pen) to evaluate the effects of feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride with or without monensin and tylosin on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics. The experiment was conducted using a randomized complete block design. Treatments were arranged as a 2 (no zilpaterol vs. zilpaterol) x 2 (monensin and tylosin withdrawn vs. monensin and tylosin fed during the final 35 d on feed) factorial. Steers were fed for a total of 161 to 167 d, and treatments were administered during the final 35 d that cattle were on feed. When included in the diet, zilpaterol, monensin, and tylosin were supplemented at 8.3, 33.1, and 12.2 mg/kg (DM basis), respectively. Zilpaterol was included in the diet for 30 d at the end of the finishing period and withdrawn from the diet for the last 5 or 6 d cattle were on feed. Cattle were harvested and carcass data collected. There were no zilpaterol x monensin/tylosin interactions (P >or= 0.12) for ADG or G:F. Feeding zilpaterol increased ADG (P < 0.001) by 0.20 kg and G:F (P < 0.001) by 0.029 kg/kg during the last 35 d on feed. Likewise, when feedlot variables were measured throughout the entire 161- to 167-d feeding trial, ADG (3.4%; P < 0.001) and G:F (3.9%; P < 0.001) were increased. Feeding zilpaterol increased (P < 0.001) dressing percent and HCW and decreased (P < 0.001) total liver abscess rate compared with controls. In addition, zilpaterol increased (P < 0.001) LM area by an average of 8.0 cm(2). There was a zilpaterol x monensin/tylosin interaction (P = 0.03) for marbling score. Zilpaterol decreased (P < 0.001) marbling score regardless of monensin and tylosin treatment, although withdrawal of monensin and tylosin for 35 d decreased marbling to a greater extent (31 vs. 17 degrees). Zilpaterol decreased (i.e., improved; P < 0.001) calculated yield grade regardless of monensin and tylosin treatment, but feeding zilpaterol in combination with the withdrawal of monensin and tylosin for 35 d decreased calculated yield grade to a greater extent (0.49 vs. 0.29) compared with the zilpaterol, monensin, and tylosin combination treatment (zilpaterol x monensin/tylosin interaction, P = 0.03). Results suggest that monensin and tylosin can be withdrawn from the diet during the zilpaterol feeding period (final 35 d on feed) with minimal effect on animal performance, although feeding zilpaterol in combination with monensin and tylosin seemed to moderate effects on carcass quality.