1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of various doses of lubabegron on calculated ammonia gas emissions, growth performance, and carcass characteristics of beef cattle during the last 56 days of the feeding period

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Lubabegron (LUB; Experior, Elanco, Greenfield, IN, USA) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2018 and is indicated for the reduction of ammonia (NH 3) gas emissions·kg −1 body weight (BW) and hot carcass weight (HCW) when fed to feedlot cattle during the final 14 to 91 d of the finishing period. LUB demonstrates antagonistic behavior at the β  1 and β  2 receptor subtypes and agonistic behavior at the β  3 receptor subtype in cattle and is classified by the Center for Veterinary Medicine as a “beta-adrenergic agonist/antagonist.” This report describes a randomized complete block study that evaluated LUB dose (0, 1.5, 3.5, and 5.5 mg·kg −1 dry matter) during the last 56 d of the feeding period on calculated NH 3 gas emissions, live weight, carcass weight, and associated ratios in beef feedlot cattle. Carcass characteristics, mobility, and health were also evaluated. All cattle received monensin and tylosin throughout the study. Ammonia gas emissions were calculated using the equation developed by Brown et al. (Brown, M. S., N. A. Cole, S. Gruber, J. Kube, and J. S. Teeter. 2019. Modeling and prediction accuracy of ammonia gas emissions from feedlot cattle. App. Anim. Sci. 35:347–356). The reduction in calculated cumulative NH 3 gas emissions with LUB ranged from 1.3% to 11.0% (85 to 708 g/hd). When NH 3 gas emissions were expressed on a live weight (unshrunk) and carcass weight basis, calculated NH 3 gas emissions decreased by 3.0% to 12.8% and 3.8% to 14.6%, respectively. Daily dry matter intake was 2.3% greater ( P trt < 0.05) for steers that received LUB. Average daily gain was 13.7% greater ( P trt < 0.05; 1.68 vs. 1.91 kg), while gain efficiency was 10.8% greater ( P trt < 0.05; 0.167 vs. 0.185) for steers fed LUB. Animal mobility was scored in the pen approximately 1 wk prior to harvest, when cattle were loaded on trucks scheduled for harvest, and at antemortem inspection during lairage. No treatment differences ( P trt ≥ 0.170) were observed at any time for the percent of cattle receiving mobility scores of 1 or 2 (normal or minor stiffness but moving with the normal cattle, respectively). Cattle mobility scored as a 1 or 2 equaled or exceeded 92% at all times. Final BW and HCW increased ( P trt < 0.05) 11.6 to 15.7 kg and 11.3 to 17.1 kg, respectively, in cattle receiving LUB compared to cattle receiving monensin plus tylosin alone.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 8th Revised Edition

          (2015)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bill E. Kunkle Interdisciplinary Beef Symposium: Practical developments in managing animal welfare in beef cattle: what does the future hold?

            Interest in the welfare of cattle in the beef industry has intensified over time because of ethical concerns and varying societal perceptions that exist about the treatment and living conditions of farm animals. The definition of welfare will vary according to an individual's philosophies (how one defines and prioritizes what is "good"), experiences (societal and cultural influences of animal roles and relationships), and involvement in the livestock industry (knowledge of how livestock operations work and why). Many welfare concerns in the beef industry could be mitigated by enhancing traditional husbandry practices that utilize practical improvements to alleviate or eliminate heat stress, pain from routine husbandry procedures, negative cattle handling, and the transitional effects of weaning, dry feeding, transportation, and comingling of calves. Recent concerns about the potential welfare effects of feeding technologies such as β-adrenergic agonists (BAA) have emerged and led to industry-wide effects, including the removal of a single BAA product from the market and the development of BAA-specific welfare audits. Altogether, the beef industry continues to be challenged by welfare issues that question a large range of practices, from traditional husbandry to newer technological advancements. As welfare awareness increases, efforts to improve livestock care and management must focus on scientific investigations, practical solutions, consumer perceptions, and educational tools that advance knowledge and training in livestock welfare. Furthermore, the future of beef cattle welfare must align welfare concerns with other aspects of sustainable beef production such as environmental quality, profitability, food safety, and nutritional quality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of shade and feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride to finishing steers on performance, carcass quality, heat stress, mobility, and body temperature1

              Steers ( = 480; 22% with black hides and 78% with red hides) were used to study the effects of shade and feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH) on performance, carcass quality, heat stress, mobility, and body temperature (BT). A randomized block design with a 2 × 2 factorial treatment arrangement was used with 4 replicates per treatment. Factors included housing type (open or shaded pens) and the feeding of ZH (0 or 8.33 mg/kg DM) the last 21 d on feed with a 3-d withdrawal. Cattle were blocked by BW into a heavy or light block and randomly assigned to pen within each block. Rumen boluses to record BT were inserted before ZH feeding. Respiration rate and panting scores were recorded daily during the ZH feeding period. Mobility scores were collected at various time points from before ZH feeding through harvest. Interactions between ZH and housing type were not significant ( > 0.26) for animal performance, carcass characteristics, and respiration or panting score. No differences ( > 0.44) were observed for DMI, ADG, or G:F on a live basis due to ZH; however, cattle fed in open pens tended ( = 0.08) to have a greater ADG than cattle in shaded pens. Cattle fed ZH had 14 kg heavier carcasses with larger LM area ( < 0.01) than control cattle. Respiration rates for cattle fed ZH were greater ( = 0.05) with no differences ( = 0.88) due to housing. Time affected ( < 0.01) mobility scores, with observations on the morning of harvest at the abattoir being the worst for all groups of cattle. An interaction ( < 0.01) was observed between ZH and housing type for BT. Cattle fed ZH, in both shaded and open pens, had lower ( < 0.05) average, maximum, and area under the curve BT than control cattle fed in the same housing type. However, the observed reduction in BT due to ZH was greater for cattle fed ZH in open pens than for cattle fed ZH in shaded pens. From these results, we conclude that ZH improved HCW with little impact on heat stress or mobility, suggesting that animal welfare was not affected by feeding ZH for 21 d at the end of the feeding period.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transl Anim Sci
                Transl Anim Sci
                tas
                Translational Animal Science
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2573-2102
                July 2021
                21 August 2021
                21 August 2021
                : 5
                : 3
                : txab137
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Elanco , Greenfield, IN 46140, USA
                [2 ]Cactus Research , Amarillo, TX 79116, USA
                [3 ]Tyson Fresh Meats Inc ., Dakota Dunes, SD 57049, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: john.kube@ 123456elancoah.com
                Article
                txab137
                10.1093/tas/txab137
                8439260
                1198088f-6bce-4a3b-a0b7-59fba15e8d8c
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 June 2021
                : 19 August 2021
                : 14 September 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 15
                Categories
                Animal Health and Well Being
                AcademicSubjects/SCI00960

                ammonia gas emissions,agonist/antagonist,beta adrenergic modulator,cattle carcass characteristics,lubabegron,mobility

                Comments

                Comment on this article