The effect of roasted soybeans in the diet of feedlot steers and Synovex-S ear implants on carcass characteristics and estimated composition

Effects of hormonal growth promotants on beef quality: a meta-analysis

Benefits of hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) include production efficiency, profit, and reduced environmental effects for beef cattle. Questions remain about effects of HGP on beef quality, particularly on measures of toughness such as Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), tenderness, and other taste-panel attributes of beef. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of HGP on beef quality using the results of randomized controlled trials identified from 3 searched databases. Thirty-one experiments with 181 treatment comparisons were used to evaluate the effects of HGP on WBSF and sensory measures of beef quality. Experiments varied in design, used many different hormonal treatments and combinations, which were single or repeated, in different breeds and sex groups of cattle, with or without electrical stimulation, and with different lengths of time on feed and beef aging. The effects of multiple treatment comparisons in experiments were evaluated using robust regression models and compared to Knapp-Hartung and permutation meta-analytical methods. Increased WBSF was associated with HGP treatment. Use of multiple HGP implants was associated with an increase in WBSF of 0.248 kg (95% CI = 0.203 to 0.292). Effects of a single implant only increased WBSF by 0.176 kg (95% CI = 0.109 to 0.242). Aging of beef did not alter the association of HGP with increased WBSF (P = 0.105); however, the point direction was toward a reduced effect with aging (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.005 per day aged). While aging lowered WBSF, it did not reduce the SMD between HGP treatment and reference groups. Comparisons using trenbolone acetate did not differ in WBSF from those using other implants (P > 0.15). The findings on sensory panel tenderness differ from those using WBSF as HGP treatment was not associated with reduced tenderness (P > 0.3) and multiple HGP treatments improved tenderness (SMD = 0.468) compared to a single implant. Further, juiciness, flavor, and connective tissue were not associated with HGP use, whereas there was a marked 5.5-point decrease in the Meat Standards Australia meat quality 4 score, albeit with limited experiments. In general, the true variance of experiments, tau2 (τ2) was low (<0.1), but heterogeneity, I2 was high (>50%) indicating that much of the variance was due to factors other than measurement error. More targeted studies on the role of HGP in influencing beef quality are needed.

Effects of hormonal growth promotants on beef quality: a meta-analysis

Benefits of hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) include production efficiency, profit, and reduced environmental effects for beef cattle. Questions remain about effects of HGP on beef quality, particularly on measures of toughness such as Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), tenderness, and other taste-panel attributes of beef. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of HGP on beef quality using the results of randomized controlled trials identified from 3 searched databases. Thirty-one experiments with 181 treatment comparisons were used to evaluate the effects of HGP on WBSF and sensory measures of beef quality. Experiments varied in design, used many different hormonal treatments and combinations, which were single or repeated, in different breeds and sex groups of cattle, with or without electrical stimulation, and with different lengths of time on feed and beef aging. The effects of multiple treatment comparisons in experiments were evaluated using robust regression models and compared to Knapp-Hartung and permutation meta-analytical methods. Increased WBSF was associated with HGP treatment. Use of multiple HGP implants was associated with an increase in WBSF of 0.248 kg (95% CI = 0.203 to 0.292). Effects of a single implant only increased WBSF by 0.176 kg (95% CI = 0.109 to 0.242). Aging of beef did not alter the association of HGP with increased WBSF (P = 0.105); however, the point direction was toward a reduced effect with aging (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.005 per day aged). While aging lowered WBSF, it did not reduce the SMD between HGP treatment and reference groups. Comparisons using trenbolone acetate did not differ in WBSF from those using other implants (P > 0.15). The findings on sensory panel tenderness differ from those using WBSF as HGP treatment was not associated with reduced tenderness (P > 0.3) and multiple HGP treatments improved tenderness (SMD = 0.468) compared to a single implant. Further, juiciness, flavor, and connective tissue were not associated with HGP use, whereas there was a marked 5.5-point decrease in the Meat Standards Australia meat quality 4 score, albeit with limited experiments. In general, the true variance of experiments, tau2 (τ2) was low (<0.1), but heterogeneity, I2 was high (>50%) indicating that much of the variance was due to factors other than measurement error. More targeted studies on the role of HGP in influencing beef quality are needed.

Meta-analysis of the published effects of HGP use on beef palatability in steers as measured by objective and sensory testing

Evidence is presented that suggests strongly that hormone growth promotant (HGP) implantation has a negative effect on beef palatability. This is based on a meta-analysis of results reported in refereed papers that have appeared in the meat-science literature. To be included in this analysis, a paper must have reported results for control samples (no HGP) and treatment samples (HGP) for either objective testing (Warner-Bratzler shear-force) or consumer preference (tenderness score). The paper must also have reported estimates and standard errors. Further, we consider only the case of steers, and the M. longissimus dorsi (striploin). While most of these studies yielded non-significant differences, most gave an estimate indicating that the HGP treatment had a negative effect on beef palatability. When these results are combined using a meta-analysis, they provide significant evidence that the use of HGP implants negatively influences palatability.

Comparison of alternative beef production systems based on forage finishing or grain-forage diets with or without growth promotants: 1. Feedlot performance, carcass quality, and production costs

Forty Angus-cross steers were used to evaluate 5 beef cattle management regimens for their effect on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and cost of production. A 98-d growing phase was incorporated using grass silage with or without growth promotants (trenbolone acetate + estradiol implants, and monensin in the feed) or soybean meal. Dietary treatments in the finishing phase were developed, with or without addition of the same growth promotants, based on exclusive feeding of forages with minimal supplementation or the feeding of barley-based diets. Overall, ADG for animals treated with growth promotants or fed supplemented diets (soybean meal and barley) was increased (P < 0.01) by 25 and 21%, respectively, compared with steers reared on grass silage alone and not treated with growth promotants. Except for HCW (P < 0.01), the use of growth promotants did not affect carcass measurements. Increasing the proportion of barley in the diet of steers finished on forage produced a heavier HCW (P < 0.01) and a greater (P < 0.01) quality grade. Because of their lower HCW and quality grade, cattle targeted to a forage-fed, nonimplanted beef market would need to garner a 16% premium to be economically competitive with cattle finished conventionally.

Performance and carcass quality of steers fed whole raw soybeans at increasing inclusion levels

Two experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy of whole raw soybeans as a partial or whole replacement for soybean meal in a corn/soybean meal-based feedlot diet. In Exp. 1, 80 crossbred steers (average BW = 441.3 kg) and, in Exp. 2, 96 Angus-sired steers (average BW = 413.7 kg) were blocked by weight and assigned randomly to one of four dietary treatments. Treatments were 0, 8, 16, and 24% dietary inclusions of whole raw soybeans. Diets within experiments were isonitrogenous. Across experiments, diets were similar, differing only in amount of corn silage (8 vs. 15% DM) at the expense of whole, shelled corn for Exp. 1 and Exp. 2, respectively. No treatment differences were observed for ADG or final BW. Dry matter intake from d 0 to d 58 decreased linearly (P < 0.05) with increased inclusion of whole raw soybeans in Exp. 1, with no effect on feed efficiency. In Exp.2 from d 0 to 72, whole raw soybean inclusion had no effect on DMI or feed efficiency. There tended (P < 0.10) to be a linear reduction in hot carcass weight when whole raw soybeans were included in Exp. 1. Unexpectedly, longissimus muscle area tended (P < 0.10) to respond quadratically (P < 0.10) to the increased inclusion of whole raw soybeans in Exp.1. No differences were detected in marbling score, 10th-rib backfat, or yield grade for Exp. 1 and 2 steers. In Exp. 2, inclusion of whole raw soybeans had no effect on hot carcass weight or longissimus muscle area. Incrementally increasing the inclusion of whole raw soybeans in the diet of feedlot steers had little overall effect on weight gain, feed efficiency, or carcass quality in Exp. 1 and 2. There were subtle differences in the treatment responses observed for hot carcass weight and longissimus muscle area between Exp. 1 and Exp. 2 for the 24% inclusion level. These noted differences may indicate that inclusion levels above 24% might not be beneficial.

Effects of repetitive use of hormonal implants on beef carcass quality, tenderness, and consumer ratings of beef palatability

Effects of repetitive use of anabolic implants on beef carcass quality, tenderness, and consumer ratings for palatability were investigated using crossbred steer calves (n = 550). Steers from five ranches were randomly allocated to one of 10 different lifetime implant strategies or to a nonimplanted control group. Cattle were implanted at some or all of five phases of production (branding, weaning, backgrounding, feedlot entry, or reimplant time). Carcasses from the control group had higher (P < 0.05) marbling scores than carcasses from steers in all other treatment groups. Implanting steers at branding, weaning, or backgrounding vs. not implanting steers at these production stages did not affect (P > 0.05) marbling scores. Steers implanted twice during their lifetime produced carcasses with higher (P < 0.05) marbling scores than did steers receiving a total of four or five implants. Steaks obtained from carcasses in the control group had lower (P < 0.05) shear force values and were rated by consumers as more desirable (P < 0.05) for tenderness like/dislike than steaks obtained from carcasses in all other treatment groups. Implanting steers at branding or weaning production stages did not affect (P > 0.05) steak shear force values, consumer ratings for like/dislike of steak tenderness, or percentage of consumers rating overall eating quality of steaks as satisfactory. Implanting steers at backgrounding vs. not implanting steers at this production stage increased (P < 0.05) steak shear force values, but did not influence (P > 0.05) consumer ratings for like/dislike of steak tenderness or percentage of consumers rating overall eating quality of steaks as satisfactory. Steaks from nonimplanted steers were rated as more desirable (P < 0.05) for overall eating quality than steaks from steers implanted two, three, four, or five times. Use of implants increased (P < 0.05) average daily gain by 11.8 to 20.5% from weaning to harvest compared with nonimplanted controls. Implant strategies increased (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight of steers by 8.9 to 13.8% compared with the control group. Use of implants also increased (P < 0.05) longissimus muscle area and decreased (P < 0.05) estimated percentages of kidney/pelvic/heart fat, but did not affect (P > 0.05) dressing percentage or adjusted fat thickness. Our findings suggest that beef quality, palatability, and production characteristics are influenced by lifetime implant protocols.

Hormone contents in peripheral tissues after correct and off-label use of growth promoting hormones in cattle: effect of the implant preparations Filaplix-H, Raglo, Synovex-H and Synovex Plus

Certain hormonal growth promoters are licensed in several beef producing countries outside the European Union (EU). Use in compliance with Good Veterinary Practice is mandatory. As risk assessment of hormone residues in animal tissues up to now has neglected potential off-label use, the present study dealt with two topics: 1) multiple treatment with the implant preparations Finaplix-H (200 mg trenbolone acetate), Ralgro (36 mg zeranol) and Synovex-H (200 mg testosterone propionate plus 20 mg estradiol benzoate) in heifers (1-fold, 3-fold and 10-fold dose), and 2) non-approved treatment of female veal calves (1-fold dose of Synovex-H or Synovex Plus with 200 mg trenbolone acetate plus 28 mg estradiol benzoate). Residues of estradiol-17beta, estradiol-17alpha, estrone and testosterone, trenbolone-17beta, trenbolone-17alpha and trendione or zeranol, respectively, were measured in loin, liver, kidney and peri-renal fat by high performance liquid chromatography/enzyme immunoassay (HPLC/EIA) after liquid-liquid extraction and solid-phase clean-up. The hormone residues in the multiple-dose experiments were dose-dependent and partially exceeded the threshold values: in the liver in one animal after 3-fold dose and in two animals after 10-fold dose of Finaplix-H, and in the liver and kidney after 3-fold and 10-fold dose of Synovex-H. Mean hormone residues in calves were mainly below those of heifers and did not infringe threshold values.