Growth Response of Beef Cattle at Pasture to Zeranol or Progesterone-Estradiol Implants

Basarab, J. A.; Gould, Stuart; Weisenburger, R. D.

doi:10.4141/cjas84-015

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results reported here are consistent with those of other studies that show that zeranol increases ADG (Brown, 1970;Thomas et al, 1970;Lewis et al, 1979;Kunkle et al, 1980;Basarab et al. 1984) but does not influence hip height following weaning (Deutscher et al, 1986).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although steers were heavier at weaning and grew more rapidly than heifers, the effects of zeranol on growth were not influenced by sex of calf. Similar observations were reported by others (Lewis et al, 1979;Basarab et al, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…However, growth responses to this implant appear to be variable during the preweaning phase of growth, perhaps due to variations in pasture conditions. Basarab et al (1984) found that average daily gains (ADG) of nursing calves implanted with zeranol varied from -7.7 to 15.3% for steers and from -8.0 to 16.9% for heifers, whereas Lesperance et al (1978) failed to detect an effect of zeranol in calves when availability of forage was low.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of nutrition, sex of calf and breed type on response to zeranol: preweaning growth

Woods

Bradley²,

Schillo³

et al. 1990

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of breed, sex and plane of nutrition on the growth response to zeranol in Angus and crossbred calves prior to weaning. Eighty-eight heifers and 118 steers received either a high or low plane of nutrition using a first and last grazing technique. Half of the calves in each nutrition group received a zeranol implant (36 mg) at an average age of 3.4 mo. Both zeranol and the higher level of nutrition increased (P less than .001) growth rate prior to weaning (7.4 mo of age). Zeranol did not affect hip height at weaning (P greater than .1), but calves on the higher plane of nutrition were taller (P less than .01) than calves on the lower plane of nutrition. The zeranol x nutrition interaction was not significant (P greater than .1) for growth rate or hip height. Steers grew faster (P less than .01) preweaning and were taller (P less than .01) at weaning than heifers. Crossbred calves gained more rapidly (P less than .001) preweaning and were taller (P less than .001) at weaning than Angus calves were. Neither sex nor breed interacted with zeranol to influence any of the traits examined. Based on these results we conclude that preweaning growth was affected by zeranol and this effect was consistent across sexes, breeds and planes of nutrition tested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of nutrition, sex of calf and breed type on response to zeranol: preweaning growth

Woods

Bradley²,

Schillo³

et al. 1990

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These values were based on the assumption that 17% of the calf crop was required each year for herd replacements (Johnson and Johnson 1995;Mathison 1993;Alberta Cow-Calf Audit 2001) and, of the remaining calves, 50% are placed in a feedlot at a slower rate of gain (stocker calves) and 50% are placed in a feedlot at a faster rate of gain (finisher calves). Start weights for each group are based on a 200-d weaning weight of 257 kg (Alberta Cow-Calf Audit 2001) and the assumption that steer calves weigh 5% more than heifer calves at weaning (Basarab et al 1984).…”

Section: Category 10-14mentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane emissions from enteric fermentation in Alberta’s beef cattle population

Basarab¹,

Okine²,

Baron³

et al. 2005

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

K. 2005. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation in Alberta's beef cattle population. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 85: 501-512. This study determined methane emissions from enteric fermentation in Alberta's beef cattle population by using three methodologies: (1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Tier 2 guidelines for cattle, (2) actual methane emission factors, expressed as a percentage of gross energy intake, from Canadian research trials and; (3) CowBytes © plus the basic equation developed by Blaxter and Clapperton (1965 .5% lower than the GHG emissions calculated using emission factors from western Canadian research and 26.7-27.6% lower than GHG emissions calculated from CowBytes © and Blaxter and Clapperton's equation. IPCC Tier 1 values, which were calculated by multiplying total beef cattle in Alberta by four single value emission factors (beef cows = 72 kg CH 4 yr -1 ; bulls = 75 kg CH 4 yr -1 ; replacement heifers = 56 kg CH 4 yr -1 ; calves, steer and heifer calves for slaughter = 47 kg CH 4 yr -1 ), were 4.83, 6.40 and 6.83 Mt CO 2 -E in 1990, 1996 and 2001, respectively. Thus, IPCC Tier 1 GHG emissions from enteric fermentation in beef cattle were 2.0-2.7, 28.6-29.1 and 29.2-31.0% lower than those calculated from IPCC Tier 2, western Canadian research trials, and CowBytes © plus Blaxter and Clapperton's equation, respectively. These results reflect the uncertainty associated with estimating methane emissions from enteric fermentation in cattle and suggest that further research is required to improve the accuracy of methane emissions, particularly for beef cows in their second and third trimester of pregnancy and fed in confinement. They also indicate that a more robust methodology may be to combine CowBytes © predicted dry matter intake with regional specific methane emission factors, where methane loss is expressed as a percentage of gross energy intake.

show abstract