The effects of zeranol and oestradiol implants on performance and nutrient digestibility of zero-grazed White Fulani cattle
O. T. Soyelu
A B and A. O. Aderibigbe A
A Department of Animal Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife 220005, Osun State, Nigeria.
B Corresponding author. Email: oluseyi23@yahoo.co.uk
Animal Production Science 60(8) 1081-1086 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19050
Submitted: 24 January 2019 Accepted: 10 October 2019 Published: 3 March 2020
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two growth-promoting implants (zeranol and oestradiol-17β) on performance and feed digestibility of finishing White Fulani cattle in the feedlot. This was with a view to determining an alternative means of enhancing cattle performance without grazing the animals.
Methods: A 60-day feedlot trial was conducted using 27 stocker White Fulani bulls that were allotted randomly to three treatment groups (i.e. non-implanted, oestradiol-implanted and zeranol-implanted) in a completely randomised experimental design. Cattle were offered a compounded feedlot ration consisting of 14% crude protein ad libitum. The bulls were weighed initially and fortnightly thereafter for the duration of the study. Coefficients of dry matter and nutrients digestibility were determined using lignin as an internal marker. Data were analysed using the general linear model procedure of ANOVA and mean values were compared using Fisher’s least significant difference (l.s.d.0.05).
Key results: The average final liveweight, total weight gain, average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) of implanted feedlot cattle were higher (P < 0.05) than for non-implanted cattle; and higher in oestradiol-implanted cattle compared with zeranol-implanted ones. The ADG was 29.16 and 20.48% higher, and the ADFI was 35.06 and 18.18% higher for oestradiol-implanted and zeranol-implanted feedlot cattle, respectively than for non-implanted cattle. Irrespective of the treatment, feed conversion ratio of experimental bulls remained below the range (4.5–7.5) established for feedlot beef cattle; an indication of better efficiency of feed utilisation by White Fulani cattle. The apparent digestibility of dry matter (59.76–64.31%) of the feedlot ration was in the order: non-implanted = oestradiol-implanted > zeranol-implanted while the apparent digestibility of crude protein (73.91–77.99%) was in the order: non-implanted > oestradiol-implanted = zeranol-implanted.
Conclusions and implications: The results of this study show that the use of an oestradiol implant in finishing zero-grazed White Fulani cattle was beneficial for improving growth performance. Both implanted and non-implanted cattle showed good coefficients of nutrient digestibility, indicating that the mode of action of the growth implants in enhancing performance characteristics does not depend on indices of digestibility.
Additional keywords: beef cattle, bull, feedlot, growth promotants, management system.
References
Aduku AO (2005) ‘Tropical feeding stuff analysis table. (Department of Animal Science, Ahmadu Bello University: Zaria, Nigeria)Al-Arif MA, Suwanti LT, Estoepangestie AS, Lamid M (2017) The nutrients contents, dry matter digestibility, organic matter digestibility, total digestible nutrient and NH3 rumen production of three kinds of cattle feeding models. KnE Life Sciences 3, 338–343.
| The nutrients contents, dry matter digestibility, organic matter digestibility, total digestible nutrient and NH3 rumen production of three kinds of cattle feeding models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
AOAC (2000) ‘Official methods of analysis.’ 17th edn. (Association of Official Analytical Chemist: Arlington, VA, USA)
Barham BL, Brooks JC, Blanton JR Barham BL, Brooks JC, Blanton JR (2003) Effects of growth implants on consumer perceptions of meat tenderness in beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 81, 3052–3056.
| Effects of growth implants on consumer perceptions of meat tenderness in beef steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14677861PubMed |
Bruns KW, Pritchard RH, Boggs DL (2005) The effect of stage of growth and implant exposure on performance and carcass composition in steers. Journal of Animal Science 83, 108–116.
| The effect of stage of growth and implant exposure on performance and carcass composition in steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15583049PubMed |
Cheatham RC, Duff GC, Bailey CR, Sanders SR, Collier RJ, Marchello JA, Baumgard LH (2008) Effects of implant programs on performance, carcass characteristics, and lipogenic gene expression in Holstein steers. South African Journal of Animal Science 38, 238–246.
Dikeman ME (2003) Metabolic modifiers and genetics: Effects on carcass traits and meat quality. International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 49, 1–38.
Dikeman ME (2007) Effects of metabolic modifiers on carcass traits and meat quality. Meat Science 77, 121–135.
| Effects of metabolic modifiers on carcass traits and meat quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22061403PubMed |
Duckett SK, Andrae JG (2001) Implant strategies in an integrated beef production system. Journal of Animal Science 79, E110–E117.
| Implant strategies in an integrated beef production system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Duckett SK, Owens FN (1997) ‘Effects of implants on performance and carcass traits in feedlot steers and heifers.’ (Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station, Oklahoma State University: Stillwater, OK, USA)
Guiroy PJ, Tedeschi LO, Fox DG, Hutche JP (2002) The effects of implant strategy on finished body weight of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1791–1800.
| The effects of implant strategy on finished body weight of beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12162646PubMed |
Harris LE (1980) Feedstuffs. In ‘Fish feed technology’. (Ed. TVR Pillay) pp. 111–168. (UNDP/FAO: Rome)
Hunter R (2010) Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry. Animal Production Science 50, 637–659.
| Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lawal-Adebowale OA (2012) Dynamics of ruminant livestock management in the context of the Nigerian agricultural system, livestock production, Khalid Javed. IntechOpen. Available at https://www.intechopen.com/books/livestock-production/dynamics-of-ruminant-livestock-management-in-the-context-of-the-nigerian-agricultural-system [Verified 22 January 2020]
Leffers H, Naesby M, Vendelbo B, Skakkebaek NE, Jorgensen MM (2001) Oestrogenic potencies of zeranol, oestradiol, diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol-A and genistein: implications for exposure assessment of potential endocrine disrupters. Human Reproduction 16, 1037–1045.
| Oestrogenic potencies of zeranol, oestradiol, diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol-A and genistein: implications for exposure assessment of potential endocrine disrupters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11331657PubMed |
Makinde OA, Soyelu OT, Aderibigbe AO (2018) Effect of growth promoters (zeranol and estradiol-17β) on carcass and sensory characteristics of zero-grazed White Fulani bulls. In ‘Development of a resilient livestock industry for national economic growth. Proceedings of the 7th ASAN-NIAS Joint Annual Meeting, Ilorin, Nigeria, 9–13 September 2018’. (Eds JO Atteh, MA Belewu, TR Fayeye, KM Okukpe, OI Alli, KD Adeyemi), Animal Science Association of Nigeria, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria. pp. 70–74.
MLA (2010) ‘Using hormone growth promotants to increase beef production.’ (Ed. I Partridge) (Meat and Livestock Australia Limited Australia: Canberra)
Mohammed I, Ismaila AB, Bibi UM (2015) An assessment of farmer-pastoralist conflict in Nigeria using GIS. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention 4, 23–33.
Montgomery TH, Dew PF, Brown MS (2001) Optimizing carcass value and the use of anabolic implants in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, E296–E306.
| Optimizing carcass value and the use of anabolic implants in beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
NRC (2000) Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th edn, (National Research Council, National Academic Press: Washington, DC).
Obi TU, Daniyan MA, Ngere LO (1980) Response of Nigerian zebu cattle to zeranol implants. Tropical Animal Health and Production 12, 224–228.
| Response of Nigerian zebu cattle to zeranol implants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 7456122PubMed |
Pampusch MS, White ME, Hathaway MR, Baxa TJ, Chung KY, Parr SL, Johnson BJ, Weber WJ, Dayton WR (2008) Effects of implants of trenbolone acetate, estradiol, or both, on muscle insulin-like growth factor-I, insulin-like growth factor-I receptor, estrogen receptor-α, and androgen receptor messenger ribonucleic acid levels in feedlot steers. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3418–3423.
| Effects of implants of trenbolone acetate, estradiol, or both, on muscle insulin-like growth factor-I, insulin-like growth factor-I receptor, estrogen receptor-α, and androgen receptor messenger ribonucleic acid levels in feedlot steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18676717PubMed |
Preston RL (1999) Hormone containing growth promoting implants in farmed livestock. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 38, 123–138.
| Hormone containing growth promoting implants in farmed livestock.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10837752PubMed |
Pritchard RH, Bruns KW, Birkelo CP (2000) A comparison of lifetime implant strategies on production and carcass characteristics in steers. Journal of Animal Science 78, 19.
Rumsey TS, Hammond AC, McMurray JP (1992) Response to re-implanting beef steers with oestradiol benzoate and progesterone: performance, implant absorption pattern and thyroxine status. Journal of Animal Science 70, 995–1001.
| Response to re-implanting beef steers with oestradiol benzoate and progesterone: performance, implant absorption pattern and thyroxine status.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1582959PubMed |
Rumsey TS, Hammond AC, Elsasser TH (1999) Responses to an estrogenic growth promoter in beef steers fed varying nutritional regimens. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2865–2872.
| Responses to an estrogenic growth promoter in beef steers fed varying nutritional regimens.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10568453PubMed |
Shike DW (2013) Beef cattle feed efficiency. Paper presented at the Driftless Region Beef Conference, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Stewart L (2013) Implanting beef cattle. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Publications, University of Georgia. Bulletin 1302.
Thompson JM, McIntyre BM, Tudor GD, Pethick DW, Polkinghorne R, Watson R (2008) Effects of hormonal growth promotants (HGP) on growth, carcass characteristics, the palatability of different muscles in the beef carcass and their interaction with aging. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1405–1414.
| Effects of hormonal growth promotants (HGP) on growth, carcass characteristics, the palatability of different muscles in the beef carcass and their interaction with aging.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.
| Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1660498PubMed |
Wuanor AA, Ayoade JA, Ani FO (2015) Performance of feedlot Bunaji bulls supplemented varying levels of an agricultural industrial by-products-based diet. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science 8, 74–78.
Zobell DR, Chapman CM, Kevin H, Birkelo C (2000) Beef cattle implants. All Archived Publication, Paper 29. Utah State University electronic publishing.
