Literature DB >> 19617517

Analysis of modern technologies commonly used in beef cattle production: conventional beef production versus nonconventional production using meta-analysis.

B W Wileman1, D U Thomson, C D Reinhardt, D G Renter.   

Abstract

Conventional feeding systems use pharmaceutical products not allowed in natural or organic systems for finishing cattle. This review of data compares the performance effects (ADG, G:F, DMI) of technologies used in conventional feeding programs that are prohibited in organic programs, natural programs, or both. The technologies evaluated were steroid implants, monensin, tylosin, endectocides, and metaphylaxis with any antimicrobial. For inclusion in this analysis, studies were conducted in North America, reported randomization to treatment group, used beef cattle, contained an untreated control group, and were sourced from peer-reviewed journals. Forest plots were used to examine the data visually for trends toward a uniform effect of the technology on the outcomes of interest (ADG, DMI, G:F). Technologies that displayed a uniform response on the forest plot compared with negative controls were then analyzed using mixed models. Examination of forest plots for endectocides, steroid implants, monensin, and metaphylaxis technologies appeared to show performance advantages for treated cattle relative to cattle in negative control groups. An insufficient number of studies met the inclusion criteria to conduct meta-analyses comparing endectocides, monensin, or tylosin with negative controls. Average daily gain in feeder cattle given metaphylaxis on arrival was 0.11 kg/d (P < 0.01) greater relative to cattle that did not receive metaphylaxis on arrival. Implanting heifers increased ADG by 0.08 kg/d compared with nonimplanted controls (P = 0.09). Implants had no effect on G:F (P = 0.14) in heifers or on DMI (P = 0.44) relative to nonimplanted control heifers. Implanting steers was associated with greater ADG, by 0.25 kg/d (P < 0.01), and DMI, by 0.53 kg/d (P < 0.01), relative to nonimplanted control steers. Implants also improved G:F in steers relative to nonimplanted steers, by 0.02 (0.17 vs. 0.15; implanted vs. controls, P < 0.01; n = 21 studies). When average estimated differences in ADG and G:F for implanted and nonimplanted steers were incorporated into a breakeven model, implanted steers had a $77/animal lower cost of production than nonimplanted steers and a $349/animal lower cost of production than organically raised steers. These data illustrate the importance of capturing premiums when operating natural and organic production systems to maintain economic viability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19617517     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1778

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  14 in total

1.  The effect of tylosin on antimicrobial resistance in beef cattle enteric bacteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Casey L Cazer; Erin R B Eldermire; Guillaume Lhermie; Sarah A Murray; H Morgan Scott; Yrjö T Gröhn
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 2.670

2.  Influence of feeding direct-fed microbial supplementation on growth performance and feeding behavior in naturally fed and conventionally fed finishing cattle with different dietary adaptation periods.

Authors:  Kendall C Swanson; James J Gaspers; Faithe A Keomanivong; Trent C Gilbery; Gregory P Lardy; Marc L Bauer; Gerald L Stokka
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-07-28       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Feeding the combination of essential oils and exogenous α-amylase increases performance and carcass production of finishing beef cattle.

Authors:  Murillo A P Meschiatti; Vinícius N Gouvêa; Lucas A Pellarin; Camila D A Batalha; Marcos V Biehl; Tiago S Acedo; João R R Dórea; Luis F M Tamassia; Fredric N Owens; Flavio A P Santos
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Effects of a live yeast in natural-program finishing feedlot diets on growth performance, digestibility, carcass characteristics, and feeding behavior.

Authors:  Lauren A Ovinge; Jhones O Sarturi; Micheal L Galyean; Micheal A Ballou; Sara J Trojan; Pedro R B Campanili; Abdullah A Alrumaih; Lucas A Pellarin
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Excretion of antibiotic resistance genes by dairy calves fed milk replacers with varying doses of antibiotics.

Authors:  Callie H Thames; Amy Pruden; Robert E James; Partha P Ray; Katharine F Knowlton
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 5.640

6.  Calf health from birth to weaning. III. housing and management of calf pneumonia.

Authors:  Ingrid Lorenz; Bernadette Earley; John Gilmore; Ian Hogan; Emer Kennedy; Simon J More
Journal:  Ir Vet J       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 2.146

7.  Comparison and analysis on sheep meat quality and flavor under pasture-based fattening contrast to intensive pasture-based feeding system.

Authors:  Zhichao Zhang; Xiaoqi Wang; Yan Jin; Kai Zhao; Ziyuan Duan
Journal:  Anim Biosci       Date:  2022-01-21

8.  A pooled analysis of six large-pen feedlot studies: effects of a noncoated initial and terminal implant compared with a single initial and delayed-release implant on arrival in feedlot heifers.

Authors:  Zachary K Smith; David G Renter; Ben P Holland; Alyssa B Word; Grant I Crawford; Wade T Nichols; Brandon L Nuttelman; Marshall N Streeter; Lee-Anne J Walter; John P Hutcheson; Bill Dicke; Robert T Brandt; Josh I Szasz; Tony C Bryant; Lois F G Pringle; Zac E Carlson; Galen E Erickson; Bradley J Johnson
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2020-07-02

9.  Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems.

Authors: 
Journal:  EFSA J       Date:  2012-05-15

10.  Economic effects of policy options restricting antimicrobial use for high risk cattle placed in U.S. feedlots.

Authors:  Guillaume Lhermie; Pierre Sauvage; Loren William Tauer; Leslie Verteramo Chiu; Karun Kanyiamattam; Ahmed Ferchiou; Didier Raboisson; Harvey Morgan Scott; David R Smith; Yrjo Tapio Grohn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.