IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201901010800001705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effects of extended-release eprinomectin on productivity measures in cow–calf systems and subsequent feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of calves

Author

Listed:
  • Andresen, Claire E.
  • Loy, Dan D.
  • Brick, Troy A.
  • Schulz, Lee L.
  • Gunn, Patrick J.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of a single injection of extended-release eprinomectin on economically relevant production variables in beef cows and calves as well as subsequent feedlot health, performance, and carcass traits of calves compared with a traditional, short duration anthelmintic. Animals from 13 cooperator herds across seven states were stratified within herd and assigned to one of two treatments; injectable doramectin (DOR; Dectomax; n = 828) or injectable eprinomection (EPR; Longrange; n = 832). Fecal samples were randomly collected from a subset of cows at both treatment and the end of grazing to evaluate fecal egg count (FEC). Continuous and categorical data were analyzed using the MIXED and GLIMMIX procedures of SAS, respectively. Cow treatment body weight (BW) and final BW were not different (P ≥ 0.40) between treatments. There were no differences (P ≥ 0.12) between treatments in cow ADG, change in BW, or body condition scores during the grazing season. While FEC at treatment did not differ (P = 0.18), cows treated with EPR had lower final FEC at the end of the grazing season (P = 0.02) and a greater reduction of FEC over the grazing season (P = 0.01). Calf treatment BW, weaning BW, and ADG did not differ between treatments (P ≥ 0.34). Incidence of pinkeye tended to be less (P = 0.06) for cows treated with EPR but was not different for calves (P = 0.43). Conception to AI, overall pregnancy rates, and calving interval were not different between treatments (P ≥ 0.45). A subset of calves from each herd was sent to Tri-County Steer Carcass Futurity (TCSCF) feedlot for the finishing phase. Calf BW did not differ at initiation of feeding (P = 0.20). While EPR calves tended to be heavier at reimplantation (P = 0.07), final BW and overall ADG were not different between treatments (P ≥ 0.13). Health records indicated lower morbidity for EPR calves (P = 0.05). Carcass performance including HCW, dressing percent, backfat, KPH, REA, YG, were not different between treatment groups (P ≥ 0.12). However, EPR calves had a greater marbling score, greater average quality grade (P

Suggested Citation

  • Andresen, Claire E. & Loy, Dan D. & Brick, Troy A. & Schulz, Lee L. & Gunn, Patrick J., 2019. "Effects of extended-release eprinomectin on productivity measures in cow–calf systems and subsequent feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of calves," ISU General Staff Papers 201901010800001705, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201901010800001705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c52400e5-c36e-45d3-b6fc-c966856c216b/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201901010800001705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.