Effects of Surgical Spaying on Heifer Feedlot Growth Performance and Dietary Energetics
الموضوعات :
A. Plascencia
1
(Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán 80260, Sinaloa, México)
V.M. González-Vizcarra
2
(Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexicali, Baja California, México)
Y.S. Valdés-García
3
(Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexicali, Baja California, México)
A. Barreras
4
(Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexicali, Baja California, México)
A. Estrada-Angulo
5
(Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán 80260, Sinaloa, México)
J.D. Urías-Estrada
6
(Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán 80260, Sinaloa, México)
R.A. Zinn
7
(Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, USA)
الکلمات المفتاحية: cattle, feed efficiency, Ovariectomy, anabolic, re-implanting, spayed <i>vs.</i> intact,
ملخص المقالة :
Fifty crossbred heifer calves were used in randomized complete block design experiment (5 heifers/pen and 5 replications per treatment), to compare effects on surgical spaying (SPAY) versus non-spayed intact (INTC) on growth-performance and dietary energetic efficiency during a 175-d growing finishing period. Upon initiation of the study heifers were implanted with a medium potency anabolic implant (200 mg testosterone propionate and 20 mg estradiol benzoate) and were reimplanted at day 75 (100 days previously to finishing experiment) with a high potency anabolic implant (140 mg trenbolone acetate and 14 mg estradiol. During first 35 days, spaying tended (P=0.08) to depress average daily gain (ADG, 9.9%) and dry matter intake (DMI, 7.5%). Differences in ADG were consistent with treatment effects on DMI, as observed DMI for both treatments were in good agreement with expected based on the net energy (NE) value of the diet. The cumulative ADG during the first 70 days and overall, were lower (7.0% and 4.6%, respectively; P≤0.04) for SPAY vs. INTC heifers. Due numerically greater DMI for INTC heifers, gain efficiency and observed vs. expected dietary NE were similar (P>0.27) across treatments. Surgical spaying retard has an appreciable long-term negative effect on daily weight gain of otherwise implanted feedlot heifers.
Adams T.E., Dunbar J.R., Berry S.L., Garret W.N., Famula T.R. and Lee Y.B. (1990). Feedlot performance of beef heifers implanted with Sinovex-H: Effect of melengestrol acetate, ovariectomy or active inmunization against GnRH. J. Anim. Sci. 68, 3079-3085.
AOAC. (2000). Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Washington, DC., USA.
AVMA. (2011). Literature Review on the Welfare Implications of Ovariectomy in Cattle. American Veterinary Medical Association. WebMD. https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/welfare-implications-ovariectomy-cattle.
Bailey C.R., Duff G.C., Sanders S.R., Cuneo S.P., McMurphy C.P., Limesand S.W., Marchello J.A., Schafer D.W., Rhoads M.L. and Hallford D.M. (2008). Effects of ovariectomy and anabolic steroid implantation on the somatotrophic axis in feedlot heifers. South African J. Anim. Sci. 38, 207-216.
Brownson R. (1994). Spaying Heifers. Beef Cattle Handbook-BCH-7390. Iowa Beef Center. Available at: https://www.iowabeefcenter.org/bch/SpayingHeifers.pdf.
Dinusson W.E. and Haugse C.N. (1983). The effect of spaying, aborting and implants on the performance of beef heifers-A review. North Dakota State University Farm. Available at: https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handle/10365/10190/farm_41_02_12.pdf.
Garber M.J., Roeder R.A., Combs J.J., Eldridge L., Miller J.C., Hinman D.D. and Ney J.J. (1990). Efficacy of vaginal spaying and anabolic implants in growth and carcass characteristics in beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 68, 1469-1475.
Hamernik D.L., Males J.R., Gaskins C.T. and Reeves J. (1985). Feedlot performance of hysterectomized and ovariectomized heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 60, 358-362.
Kelzer J. (2009). Spaying Heifers: What Is It Worth? The Beef Site. WebMD. https://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/2213/spaying-heifers-what-is-it-worth.
Ko B.H., Park D.G. and Lee W.J. (2022). Postoperative observation of spaying with the silicon ring on the ovaries in heifers: A retrospective study in 28 cases. Vet. Sci. 9, 643-652.
NRC. (2016). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 8th Ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC., USA.
Perino L.J., Rupp G.P., Hollis L.C., Schanbacher B.D. and Cundiff L.V. (1995). Growth and carcass characteristics of heifers implanted with estradiol benzoate and trenbolone acetate. The compendium on continuing education for the practicing veterinarian, USA.
Plascencia A., Valenzuela R.M., Barreras A., Cervantes M., González V.M. and Zinn R.A. (2008). Influence of ovariectomized (spaying) and feeding system on performance and carcass characteristics of implanted beef heifers. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 7, 365-369.
Popp J.D., McAllister T.A., Burgevitz W.J., Kemp R.A., Kastelic J.P. and Cheng K.J. (1997). Effect of trenbolene acetate/estradiol implants and estrus suppression on growth performance and carcass characteristics of beef heifers. Canadian J. Anim. Sci. 77, 325-328.
Preston R.L. (1999). Hormone containing growth promoting implants in farmed livestock. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 38, 123-138.
Rupp G.P. and Hamilton E.D. (2000). Management of spayed heifers. American Assoc. Bovine Pract. Conf. Proc. 33, 112-116.
SAS Institute. (2007). SAS®/STAT Software, Release 9.3. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. USA.
Smith Thomas H. (2013). Why spaying beef heifers makers sense. Beef Magazine, 7900 International Drive, Suite 650, Minneapolis, MN 55425 USA. Available at: http://beefmagazine.com/cattlegenetics/why-spaying-beef-heifers-makes-sense?page=1.
Zinn R.A., Barreras A., Owens F.N. and Plascencia A. (2008). Performance by feedlot steers and heifers: ADG, mature weight, DMI and dietary energetics. J. Anim. Sci. 86, 1-10.
