The objective of this research was to determine the effect on feedlot performance of implanting various growth promotants in young bulls. Responses to these various implants by bulls were compared to a control group of bulls to determine the differences in feedlot performance. These comparisons provide information to help determine the most effective methods of bull feeding

Bruce, L. B.

Gee, D. H.

English

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange

South Dakota State UniversityOpen PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information ExchangeSouth Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedingsand Research Reports, 1983 Animal Science Reports1983The Effect of Growth Promoting Implants onFeedlot Performance by Gelbvieh BullsL. B. BruceSouth Dakota State UniversityD. H. GeeFollow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_cattlefeed_1983This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Reports at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports,1983 by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For moreinformation, please contact michael.biondo@sdstate.edu.Recommended CitationBruce, L. B. and Gee, D. H., "The Effect of Growth Promoting Implants on Feedlot Performance by Gelbvieh Bulls" (1983). SouthDakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports, 1983. Paper 8.http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_cattlefeed_1983/8THE EFFECT OF GROWTH PROMOTING IMPLANTS ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE BY GELBVIEH BULLS L .  B .  B r u c e  a n d  D .  H .  Gee Dep a 1� t me n t  of An i ma l  and Han g e  Sc i e n ce s  CATTLE 8 3--7 N i n e t y - t w o  G e l b v i eh b u l l s  w e r e  r a n d om l y a l l o c a t e d  i n t o  f our t r ea t m e n t  g r o u p s  of 23 b u l l s  e a c h . T h e  b u l l s  wer e w e i g h ed ,  i mp l an t ed w i t h  e � t h e r  R a l g r o ,  Syn o ve x -S , Syn ovex - H  o r  n ot i mp l a n t ed ( c o n t r o l  g r ou p > a n d p l aced o n  an 8 2 %  h i g h m o i s t u r e  c or n  r a t i on f or 2 1 2  d a y s . Feed l ot p e r f o r man c e  d a t a  wer e c o l ­l ec t e d  f or t h e  f ou r  g r oup s .  B u l l s  i mp l a n t e d  w i t h  Syn ovex - H  h ad t h e  h i g h est a ver a g e  d a i l y  g a i n s .  Over a l l i mp l an t ed g r ou p s  wer e s l i g h t l y h i g h e r  i n  a v e r a g e  d a i l y  g a i n t h a n  t h e  n on i mp l an t ed c o n t r o l  g r oup . Feed c o n sumed p e r  l b  o f  b o d y  w e i g h t  g a i n ed i n d i c at ed l i t t l e  d i f f er en c e s  w i t h  S y n o v e x - S  a n d  Syn o v e x - H  b e i n g  s l i g h t l y b e t t e r  t h an Ra l g r o  o r  c o n t r o l  g r oup s .  I t  ap p ea r s  t h a t t h er e  may b e  s o m e  b en e f i t  f r om i mp l an t i n g b u l l s  i n  b o t h  aver a g e  d a i l y  g a i n a n d  f eed ef f i c i en c y ,  b u t  t h e  r e s p o n se w i l l  n o t  b e  as g r eat as f or h e i f er s  o r  s t eer s .  T h e  e f f ec t s  o f  g r o w t h  p r omot i n g i mp l an t s  o n  f eed l o t s t e e r s  a n d  h e i f er s  a r e  w e l l d oc umen t e d . Th ese i mp l an t s  i mp r o v e  t h e  r a t e  o f  g r ow t h  a n d  p os t wean i n g f eed e f f i c i en c y  o f  s t ee r s  a n d  h e i f er s .  I n f o r m a t i on c on c e r n i n g t h e  v a l u e  c f  i mp l an t i n g f eed l ot b u l l s  i s  l es s  w e l l k n own . Th i s  k n o w l e d g e  w i l l  b ec ome m o r e  i mp o r t a n t  i n  t h e  f u t u r e  as m o r e  e f f i c i en t  w a y s  o f  r a i s i n g  f ee d ­l ot c a t t l e  a r e  used . Feed i n g b u l l s  i s  o n e  o f  t h ese ways . As f eed i n g b u l l s  b e c omes m o r e p o p u l ar , i n f or mat i on on t h e  e f f ec t s  o f  i mp l an t i n g w i l l  b e c om e  m o r e  i mp o r t an t . Th i s  r e s e a r c h  was d es i g n e d  to p r ov i d e  s o m e  i n s i g h t  i n t o  i mp l an t i n g  b u l l s .  T h e  o b j e c t i ve of t h i s r es e a r c h  was t o  d et e r m i n e  t h e  e f f e c t  o n  f eed l o t p e r f o r man c e  o f  i mp l an t i n g var i o us g r ow t h  p r om o t an t s  i n  youn g b u l l s . Res p o n ses t o  t h ese var i ou s  i mp l a n t s  b y  b u l l s  were c om p a r ed t o  a c o n t r o l  g r oup c f  b u l l s  t o  d e t er m i n e t h e  d i f f er e n c e s  i n  f eed l o t p er f o r m a n c e . T h e s e  c om p ar i s o n s  p r ov i d e i n f or mat i on t o  h e l p d e t er m i n e  t h e  most e f f ec t i ve met h o d s  o f  b u l l f eed i n g .  N i n e t y- t w o  G e l b v i e h  b u l l s  w e r e  p u r c h ased a t  H i g h m or e ,  S o u t h  D a k o t a  a n d  t r uc k e d  t o  t h e  Sout h ea s t  Sout h D a k o t a  C o r n b e l t A g r i c u l t u r a l  Resea r c h  C en t er at B e r e s f o r d , S o u t h  Da k o t a . T h e n i n e t y - t w o  G e l b v i eh b u l l s  w e r e  r a n d om l y a l l ot t ed i n t o  f ou r  t r eat m e n t  g r ou p s  o f  23 b u l l s  e ac h .  T h e  b u l l s  wer e w e i g h ed , ( aver a g e  524 l b >  i mp l a n t ed a n d  p l a c ed i n  f ee d l ot p en s . T h e  f our 30 t r ea t m e n t  g r oup s wer e < A >  c on t r o l  ( no i mp l an t s > , C B >  i mp l a n t e d  w i t h  Synovex -S , < C >  i mp l an t ed w i t h  Syn ovex -H a n d  C D >  i mp l a n t e d  w i t h  R a l g r o .  A l l .  b u l l s  wer e f ed t h e  r a t i o n  p r es e n t e d  i n  t ab l e  1 c on s i st i n g of ( d r y  ma t t er > b a s i s 1 5 % c o r n  s i l ag e ,  82% h i g h m o i s t u r e  c or n  a n d  a 3% p r ot e i n sup p l emen t C 35 %  c r u d e  p r o t e i n ,  400 g / t on monen s i n a n d  1 80 g / t on of t y l os i n ) . On t h e  1 6t h  of December 1 98 1  t h e  t r i a l  b e g a n . T h e  b u l l s  wer e i n i t i a l l y f ed a r at i on on a d r y  mat t er b as i s < DMB > of 32% h i g h moi s t u r e  c o r n , 60% c or n  s i l ag e  a n d  8% sup p l emen t f or 1 w ee k . At t h e  b eg i n n i n g  of week 2 t h e  r at i on was c h an g ed t o  h i g h m o i s t u r e c or n , 40% c o r n  s i l ag e  a n d  8 %  sup p l emen t . I n  week 3 t h e  r a t i on was i nc r eased t o  i n c l ud e  72% h i g h m o i s t u r e  c or n , 23% c or n  s i l ag e  a n d  5 %  sup­p l emen t . At w e e k  4 b u l l s  were c on sum i n g  the f i n a l  r at i on o f  82% h i g h m o i s t u r e  c or n , 1 5% c or n  s i l ag e  a n d  3% p r ot e i n sup p l emen t .  T h e  t r i a l  was c on c l uded o n  J u l y 29 , 1 982 , w h e n  t h e  b u l l s  w e r e  mar k et ed . Feed l ot p er f or ma n c e  f or � h e  p er i od was mon i t o r e d  b y  mon t h l y  w e i g h i n g s  of i n d i v i d u a l  b u l l s  a n d  measur emen t of �en f ee d  c on ­sum p t i on .  Car c ass d at a  wer e t a k en u p o n  s l aug h t e r  a n d  w i l l  b e  r ep or t ed l at e r . B u l l s  wer e managed s p e c i f i c a l l y  t o  m i n i m i z e a g g r e ss i ve b eh av i or .  Th e b u l l s  wer e p ur c h ased f r om o n e  h er d  a n d  wh e n  r a n d om l y a l l o t t ed i n t o  t h e  f our g r oup s ,  b u l l s  f r om var i ous g r oups wer e t h e n  n ever a l l owed tc m i x .  Th i s  p r even t s  muc h of t h e  u n d es i r ab l e  b e h av i or of t en ex h i b i t ed b y  f eed l o t b u l l s . Aver a g e  d a i l y  g a i n s  a n d  f eed e f f i c i en c y  d a t a  a r e  p r esen t ed i n  t ab l e  2 .  I n  g e n e r a l , t h e  r esu l t s  show i n c r eased p e r f o r man c e  b y  t h e  i mp l a n t ed g r ou p s  over t h e  c o n t r o l  g r oup i n  a v e r a g e  d a i l y  g a i n b u t  n o  c l ear c ut t r e n d  i n  f eed · ef f i c i en c y .  T h e  h i g h es t  aver a g e  d a i l y  g a i n s  wer e ac h i eved b y  t h e  b u l l s  i mp l an t e d  w i t h  Syn ovex -H. T h e  ot h e r  i mp l an t s  d i d  n o t  r esu l t i n  aver a g e  d a i l y  g a i n s  t h a t  wer e d i f f er e n t  t h an f or t h e  c o n t r o l  g r oup . T h e  p o un d s  o f  d r y  f eed c o n sumed p er p o u n d  o f  b o d y  we i g h t  g a i n e d  s h owed l i t t l e  d i f f er en c e  bet ween a l l g r oup s . Non e  of t h e  measures of f ee d  e f f i c i en c y  were g r e at l y  d i f f er en t , w i t h  R a l g r c  g r ou p s  t e n d ­i n g t o  b e  t h e  l east e f f i c i en t  a n d  t h e  Syn ovex - H  t h e  most . F r om t h i s  t r i a l  t h e  i mp l an t a t i o n  of b u l l s  w i t h  Syn ovex - H  ap p ea r e d  b est a n d  i mp l a n t a t i on w i t h  a n y  o f  t h e  t h r ee stud i ed wou l d p r ob ab l y  b e  b e n ef i c i a l . Resp o n s e  t o  i mp l an t i n g  b u l l s  d i d  n ot a p p ea r  t o  b e  as s t r o n g  or c o n s i s t e n t  as r e s p o n s e s  of s t ee r s  a n d  h e i f er s .  3 1  \. . TABLE 1 .  PRO X I MATE ANALYS I S  OF FEEDLOT RAT I ON USED ON A DRY MATTER BAS I S  - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -I t em Dr- y m i.� t t e1� Cr· u d e  p 1r· o t e i  n c1� u d e  f i b er E t h e1� f-?:«t r a c t  {�s h  N i t r og en f r ee e x t r a c t  I. i n  r a t i on 6 6 . 1 :l. 1. . 3  6 . 5 7 5 . 5 TABLE 2 .  FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE OF BULLS BY TREATMENT < DECEMBER 1 6 ,  1 98 1  - J ULY 1 9 ,  1 982 - 202 DAYS > I t em N o . of a n i m a l s I n i t i a l �..,t , l b  F i n a l  �4J t ,  l b  llJe i g h t  g a i n ,  l b  P1 vg d a i l y  g a i n ,  l b  Avg d a i l y  i n t a k e ,  l b  DMB FeE? d i (� a :i n ,  l b  Con b·· o J. 507 1 1  :20 6 1 3  2 . B 1 9  .. 6 6 . 7 3 2  I mp l a n t s  Ra l g r o  S y n o vex - H  S y n ovex - S  '""'! -,. ....::.-.. :: 5 3 4  1 1 5 6  6 2 2  2 . 9  1 9 . 9 6 . 8 1 :� c):::;; ....... .-. -�:· ll t_J 2 l) .  5 6 . 6 5 2 4  1 1  T3 6 4 9  2 . 9 6 .. 6 

The Effect of Growth Promoting Implants on Feedlot Performance by Gelbvieh Bulls

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=sd_cattlefeed_1983

The Effect of Growth Promoting Implants on Feedlot Performance by Gelbvieh Bulls

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange