Knife Cutting vsBanding with...
Transcript of Knife Cutting vsBanding with...
Knife Cutting vs Banding
with Metaphylaxis Treatment
Faculty: Chris Richards, Clint Krehbiel, D.L. Step
Graduate Students: Casey Maxwell, Blake Wilson, Dana Christensen, Joe Wagner, Blaine Johnson
Frequency of Bulls vs. Steers?
• Smith et al., 1999
– 27% of male calves were bulls
• McDaniel et al., 2003• McDaniel et al., 2003
– 27% of producers do not castrate males calves
Percent of operations that castrated male calves born in 1996
before sale by region
WestNorth-Central Central
South-Central Southeast
Adapted from NAPHIS Cow-Calf ‘97
West Central Southeast89.2% 95.8% 82.8% 63.6% 65.0%
25.5% Calves not castrated
Average Daily Gain of animals arriving at a preconditioning facility as intact males compared
to steers during a 44-d receiving period
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0Bulls
SteersDays
ADG (lb)Difference
0-15 0.93
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Day 0-15 Day 16-30 Day 31-44
lbs
2.46 vs 3.38P=0.003
3.87 vs 4.46P=0.02
2.42 vs 2.72P=0.17
16-30 0.60
31-44 0.30
0-44 0.59
Health Assessment
1020304050
Pe
rce
nta
ge
P<0.0001 P=0.0005
P<0.0001
Morbidity Mortality Case FatalityRate
Bulls 42.3 23.4 10.81Steers 11.3 3.9 3.92
010
Pe
rce
nta
ge
BRD Treatments
60
80
100
Per
cen
tag
e
bP<0.001
One Treatment > 1 TreatmentBulls 55.3 44.7Steers 91.3 8.7
0
20
40
Per
cen
tag
e
a ab
Treatment Cost
10
15
US
Do
llars
0
5
Bulls Steers
US
Do
llars
12.302.65
Bulls vs. Steers: Body Wt Gain
620640660680700
BullsP=0.21
P=0.57
P=0.49
500520540560580600
Day 0 Day 15 Day 30 Day 44
lbs
Bulls
SteersP=0.01
P=0.21
Conclusions
• Castration at arrival results in:
– Decreased performance - ~ $35
– Increased health costs - $12
– Purchase steer = $678– Purchase steer = $678
– Purchase bull = $464
– 31% discount
Conclusions
• Castration at arrival results in:
– 27 lb less gain in 44 days
– ~10 increase in treatment cost
Common Questions
• How much should they be discounted?
• Is banding better?
• If they are likely to get sick, should we provide
metaphylaxis treatment?metaphylaxis treatment?
Knife Cutting vs. Banding
Pull-N-Treat vs. Metaphylactic Treatment Pull-N-Treat vs. Metaphylactic Treatment
Management
• Crossbred steers (269 hd) and bulls (356 hd) were purchased from livestock markets in Oklahoma and Arkansas between January and March 2011
• Calves experienced a 2.5% shrink to Stillwater (avg = 100 mi; initial BW = 584 lb ) from a pay weight of 598 lb
• After arrival weighing and tagging, calves were allowed to rest for 24 to 72 h with ad libitum access to prairie hay and waterlibitum access to prairie hay and water
• clostridial toxins including Clostridium tetani (Covexin 8; IV/SP), IBR, PI3, BRSV, and BVDtype I and II (Express 5; BI), and internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial).
• Bulls castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicrate bander loops
• Half calves received metaphylatic animtimicrobial (Draxxin; Pfizer, 1.1 ml/cwt)
• Penned by castration status and metaphylaxis
• Visual evaluation 2/1 times daily - treatment administered if rectal temperature> 104.0 °F
Feeding• Cattle received in small
groups (12-96 hd ), pens were filled one set at a time (20-26 hd/pen)
• averaged 6 d to fill each pen
• d 0 = full pen
• Cattle were fed a common 65%
Item, % (DM Basis)
Ingredient
Dry rolled corn 33.5
Corn DDGS 11.0
Sorghum WDGS 15.0
Prairie hay 34.5
Dry supplement1 6.0
Nutrient composition• Cattle were fed a common 65% concentrate ration 2x for free choice intake
• 2 lb/hd/d prairie hay fed until d 4
• Calves were weighed on d 28 and 42 with a 2% pencil shrink applied
Nutrient composition
DM, % 70.46
CP, % 14.04
ADF, % 21.90
NDF, % 34.28
Ca, % 0.78
P, % 0.351Pelleted supplement contained the following (DM basis): 49.85% ground corn, 18.70% wheat
middlings, 24.64% limestone, 4.83% urea, 3.94% salt, 1.51% magnesium oxide, 0.03% manganous oxide,
4.53% potassium chloride, 0.23% zinc sulfate, 0.07% vitamin A (30,000 IU/g), 0.04% vitamin E (50%),
0.34% Rumensin 80 (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN), and 0.21% Tylan 40 (Elanco Animal
Health).
Anti-microbial Treatment Protocol
Mass Med Pull-N-Treat
Drug Post Trt
Interval
Drug Post Trt
Interval
Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d - -
1st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d
2nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d
3rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d
4th Treatment - - Baytril -
Weights
Knife Band Steer
Item, MM# NP MM NP MM NPSignificant
effects*
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 -
Initial BW, lb 590 601 605 591 604 598 -
Day 28 BW, lb 652 661 666 645 693 682 SBDay 28 BW, lb 652 661 666 645 693 682 SB
Day 42 BW, lb 698 701 705 677 732 724 SB
#MM= metaphlaxis; NP = Pull-n-trt;
*SB = Steer vs. Bull
Feedlot performance
Knife Band Steer
Item, MM# NP MM NP MM NPSignificant
effects*
Day 0-42 – deads & realizers out
ADG, lb/d 2.35 2.18 2.18 1.87 2.85 2.82 SB
DMI, lb/d 13.76 13.52 14.52 13.51 15.67 14.92 SB, MM
F:G, lb/lb 5.88 6.25 6.66 7.69 5.55 5.26 SB, KB
#MM= metaphylaxis; NP = Pull-n-trt;
*SB = Steer vs. Bull; MM = Metaphylaxis vs. Pull-n-Trt; KB = Knife vs.
Band
Steers vs. Bulls
15.3
14.5
15
15.5
DMI – 11% increase
2.84
2.152.5
3
ADG – 0.69 lb or 32%
increase
13.76
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
Steer Bull
Lb/d
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Steer Bull
Lb/d
MM vs. Pull-N-Treat
14.56
14.3
14.4
14.5
14.6
14.7
DMI – 4% increase
2.462.29
2
2.5
3
ADG – 7% increase,
but not significant
13.98
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.9
14
14.1
14.2
14.3
MM NP
Lb/d
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
MM NP
Lb/d
Health – 42 d
Knife Band Steer
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NPSignificant
effects*
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 -
Treated once,
% pen112.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 16.60 SB, KB, MM
% pen112.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 16.60 SB, KB, MM
Total treatments,
% pen112.50 51.14 6.82 34.09 0 20.93 SB, KB, MM
Resp. Mortality, % pen2 1.14 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 -
1 Morbidity data reflect only respiratory disease. Treated once represents first treatments, and total treatments
represent first treatments and all subsequent retreatments.2 Mortality data reflect death only from respiratory disease. A post-mortem examination was conducted on all dead
cattle to determine cause of death.#MM= mass med; NP = Pull-n-trt;
*SB = Steer vs. Bull; KB = Knife vs. Band; MM = Mass med vs. Pull-n-Trt
Economics
• Analysis was reflective of deads-out
performance
• Processing costs and medicine costs are
reflective of current market values, feed cost
was $199.51/ton DMwas $199.51/ton DM
• Purchase price was assumed to be
$125.54/cwt
Economics - EstimatesKnife Band Steer
Item, MM# NP MM NP MM NPSignificant
effects*
Processing cost,
$/hd230.22 7.98 29.55 7.91 26.22 4.38 MM
Medicine cost,
$/hd1.65 11.21 0.96 9.19 0 4.31 MM
Feed cost,
$/hd66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 SB, MM
$/hd66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 SB, MM
Total cost,
$/hd104.90 103.5 98.28 97.50 99.77 78.98 SB, MM
Breakeven w/o
purchase price
spread, $/lb3
1.21 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.14 SB
#MM= metaphylaxis, NP = Pull-n-trt;
*SB = Steer vs. Bull, MM = Mass med vs. Pull-n-Trt2 Includes a methaphylaxis cost of $21.84/hd for all MM treatments and a $3.35/hd fee for castration of all bulls.
Conclusions
• Bulls resulted in $0.07 increase in breakevens after 42 days if purchased at the same price as steers ~6% decrease in purchase price
• Banding reduced morbidity compared to Knife
• MM reduced:• MM reduced:– treatments in bulls and steers
– Reduce mortality in bulls
– Numerically reduced breakevens ($.02 to .03/cwt) in bulls
• Was 44 days long enough?
• With winter calves, castration method may be more an issue of producer preference
May we appreciate all we produce!
Thank YouThank You
The End
Effects of castration method and antibiotic
administration protocol on feedlot health,
performance and economics of high-risk calves• Materials and Methods
– 610 hd crossbred calves (58% Bulls) purchased at livestock auctions in Oklahoma January 12, 2011- March 2, 2011
– Initial weight 592 lbs.– Initial weight 592 lbs.
– At arrival • Weighed, received individual identification
• Allowed ad libitum access to hay and water until processing
Experimental Design
• 3 × 2 factorial (elastration [Band] vs. surgical emasculation [Knife] vs. Steer [Steer] ×metaphylaxis [MM] vs. pull and treat protocol [NP])
• Pen was experimental unit• Pen was experimental unit
• Cattle were blocked by time period (January and March arrival)
• Performance and economic data analyzed using PROC GLM, and health data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX
Materials and Methods
• Processing 24-72 h post-arrival– Vaccination against:
• Clostridial toxins including Clostridium tetani (Covexin 8; Intervet/Schering-Plough, Millsboro, DE)
• IBR, PI3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; Boehringer—Ingelheim, St. Joseph, MO)
• Internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA)
• Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation • Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicratebander loops (Ross Manufacturing, St. Francis, KS) according to randomization
• Calves randomized to receive metaphylactic treatment were administered tulathromycin (1.1 mL/cwt) (Draxxin; Pfizer Animal Health, New York City, NY)
Table 1: Treatment Protocol
• Cattle were visually appraised for signs of BRD twice
daily for the first 14 d and once/d thereafter
• Cattle needing evaluation were pulled from home
pen, and treatment was administered according to
Table 1 with corresponding post-treatment intervals
(PTI) if rectal temperature> 104.0 °F
Table 1: Treatment Protocol
MM NP
Drug PTI Drug PTI
Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d - -
1st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d
2nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d
3rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d
4th Treatment - - Baytril -
Results
The effects of treatment on feedlot performance with deads and removals excluded1
Knife Band Steer P-value
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4Steer vs.
Bull5Knife vs.
Band6
MM vs.
NP7
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -
Initial BW, lb 588 598 609 593 598 603 7.49 0.59 0.27 0.95
Day 28 BW, lb2 660 657 681 645 680 683 11.13 < 0.01 0.64 0.26
Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40
Day 0-28
ADG, lb/d 2.30 1.82 2.28 1.63 2.66 2.61 0.25 < 0.01 0.70 0.08
DMI, lb/d 12.04 11.69 12.86 11.49 13.15 12.18 0.45 0.03 0.44 0.01
G:F, lb/lb 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.02 < 0.01 0.45 0.25
Day 0-42
ADG, lb/d 2.44 2.11 2.33 1.95 2.77 2.75 0.21 < 0.01 0.49 0.18
DMI, lb/d 14.01 13.70 14.61 13.31 15.53 14.70 0.51 < 0.01 0.79 0.04
G:F, lb/lb 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.03 < 0.01 0.33 0.47
13.91
15.12
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
DMI, lb/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
2.21 2.76
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
ADG, lb/d
Bulls
Steers
24.89 %
0.2
P < 0.01
8.7 %
0.1525
0.185
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
G:F, lb/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
21.31 %
The effects of treatment on feedlot health
Knife Band Steer P-value
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NPSteer vs.
Bull5Knife vs.
Band6
MM vs.
NP7
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - -
Day 0-28
First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01
Total treatments, % of pen 12.50 51.14 6.82 34.09 0 20.93 <0.01 0.03 <0.01
Deads, % of pen 1.14 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.66 0.22
Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18
Day 0-42
First treatments, % of pen 12.5 44.32 6.8 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01
Total treatments, % of pen 12.5 57.95 7.96 36.36 0 20.93 <0.01 0.02 <0.01
Deads, % of pen 1.14 3.40 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.43 0.15
Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18
28.69
10.47
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total treatments, % of pen
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
18.22 %
35.23
22.16
0
10
20
30
40
Total treatments, % of pen
Knife
Band
P = 0.02
13.07 %
6.82
30.82
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total treatments, % of pen
MM
NP
P < 0.01
24.00 %
The effects of treatment on feedlot economics
Knife Band SteerP-value
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4
Steer
vs.
Bull5
Knife
vs.
Band6
MM vs.
NP7
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -
Processing cost, $/hd 30.22 7.98 29.55 7.91 26.22 4.38 0.15 0.42 0.95 <0.01
Medicine cost, $/hd 1.65 11.21 0.96 9.19 0 4.31 1.92 0.06 0.68 <0.01
Feed cost, $/hd 66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 2.85 <0.01 0.23 0.06
Total cost, $/hd 104.90 103.50 98.28 97.50 99.78 78.98 6.72 0.05 0.41 0.08
Cost of gain, $/lb 1.03 1.23 1.06 1.53 0.77 0.60 0.22 <0.01 0.55 0.47
Breakeven, $/lb 1.21 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.14 0.02 <0.01 0.54 0.96
1.21
0.69
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Cost of gain, $/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
175 %1.05
0.77
1.38
0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
Bulls Steers
MM
NP
1.23
1.16
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
1.22
1.24
Breakeven, $/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
6.03 % 1.22
1.17
1.24
1.14
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
1.22
1.24
1.26
Bulls Steers
MM
NP
Conclusions
• Steers had improved feedlot performance, and lower morbidity resulting in lower breakevens
• MM did not effect breakevens and cost of gain of steers
• No difference in feedlot performance or • No difference in feedlot performance or economics due to castration methods
• MM improved breakevens and cost of gain in bulls
• 600 lb bulls should be purchased about 6% back from steers ~ $8-$10 in today’s market
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
18.8%
Retreatment %
Bull vs. Steer (P < 0.01)
Band vs. Knife (P = 0.06)
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Steer Band Knife
4.0%
10.5%
ADG – 42 day
2.00
2.50
2.35
1.541.63
Bull vs. Steer (P < 0.01)
Band vs. Knife (P = 0.48)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Steer Band Knife
Effects of castration method and antibiotic
administration protocol on feedlot health, performance
and economics of high-risk calves
• Materials and Methods
– 610 hd crossbred calves (58% Bulls) purchased at livestock auctions in Oklahoma January 12, 2011- March 2, 2011
– Initial weight 592 lbs.– Initial weight 592 lbs.
– At arrival • Weighed, received individual identification
• Allowed ad libitum access to hay and water until processing
Experimental Design
• 3 × 2 factorial (elastration [Band] vs. surgical emasculation [Knife] vs. Steer [Steer] ×metaphylaxis [MM] vs. pull and treat protocol [NP])
• Pen was experimental unit• Pen was experimental unit
• Cattle were blocked by time period (January and March arrival)
• Performance and economic data analyzed using PROC GLM, and health data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX
Materials and Methods
• Processing 24-72 h post-arrival– Vaccination against:
• Clostridial toxins including Clostridium tetani (Covexin 8; Intervet/Schering-Plough, Millsboro, DE)
• IBR, PI3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; Boehringer—Ingelheim, St. Joseph, MO)
• Internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA)
• Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation • Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicratebander loops (Ross Manufacturing, St. Francis, KS) according to randomization
• Calves randomized to receive metaphylactic treatment were administered tulathromycin (1.1 mL/cwt) (Draxxin; Pfizer Animal Health, New York City, NY)
Table 1: Treatment Protocol
• Cattle were visually appraised for signs of BRD twice
daily for the first 14 d and once/d thereafter
• Cattle needing evaluation were pulled from home
pen, and treatment was administered according to
Table 1 with corresponding post-treatment intervals
(PTI) if rectal temperature> 104.0 °F
Table 1: Treatment Protocol
MM NP
Drug PTI Drug PTI
Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d - -
1st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d
2nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d
3rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d
4th Treatment - - Baytril -
Results
The effects of treatment on feedlot performance with deads and removals excluded1
Knife Band Steer P-value
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4Steer vs.
Bull5Knife vs.
Band6
MM vs.
NP7
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -
Initial BW, lb 588 598 609 593 598 603 7.49 0.59 0.27 0.95
Day 28 BW, lb2 660 657 681 645 680 683 11.13 < 0.01 0.64 0.26
Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40
Day 0-28
ADG, lb/d 2.30 1.82 2.28 1.63 2.66 2.61 0.25 < 0.01 0.70 0.08
DMI, lb/d 12.04 11.69 12.86 11.49 13.15 12.18 0.45 0.03 0.44 0.01
G:F, lb/lb 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.02 < 0.01 0.45 0.25
Day 0-42
ADG, lb/d 2.44 2.11 2.33 1.95 2.77 2.75 0.21 < 0.01 0.49 0.18
DMI, lb/d 14.01 13.70 14.61 13.31 15.53 14.70 0.51 < 0.01 0.79 0.04
G:F, lb/lb 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.03 < 0.01 0.33 0.47
13.91
15.12
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
DMI, lb/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
2.21 2.76
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
ADG, lb/d
Bulls
Steers
24.89 %
0.2
P < 0.01
8.7 %
0.1525
0.185
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
G:F, lb/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
21.31 %
The effects of treatment on feedlot health
Knife Band Steer P-value
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NPSteer vs.
Bull5Knife vs.
Band6
MM vs.
NP7
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - -
Day 0-28
First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01
Total treatments, % of pen 12.50 51.14 6.82 34.09 0 20.93 <0.01 0.03 <0.01
Deads, % of pen 1.14 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.66 0.22
Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18
Day 0-42
First treatments, % of pen 12.5 44.32 6.8 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01
Total treatments, % of pen 12.5 57.95 7.96 36.36 0 20.93 <0.01 0.02 <0.01
Deads, % of pen 1.14 3.40 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.43 0.15
Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18
28.69
10.47
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total treatments, % of pen
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
18.22 %
35.23
22.16
0
10
20
30
40
Total treatments, % of pen
Knife
Band
P = 0.02
13.07 %
6.82
30.82
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total treatments, % of pen
MM
NP
P < 0.01
24.00 %
The effects of treatment on feedlot economics
Knife Band SteerP-value
Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4
Steer
vs.
Bull5
Knife
vs.
Band6
MM vs.
NP7
Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -
Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -
Processing cost, $/hd 30.22 7.98 29.55 7.91 26.22 4.38 0.15 0.42 0.95 <0.01
Medicine cost, $/hd 1.65 11.21 0.96 9.19 0 4.31 1.92 0.06 0.68 <0.01
Feed cost, $/hd 66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 2.85 <0.01 0.23 0.06
Total cost, $/hd 104.90 103.50 98.28 97.50 99.78 78.98 6.72 0.05 0.41 0.08
Cost of gain, $/lb 1.03 1.23 1.06 1.53 0.77 0.60 0.22 <0.01 0.55 0.47
Breakeven, $/lb 1.21 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.14 0.02 <0.01 0.54 0.96
1.21
0.69
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Cost of gain, $/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
175 %1.05
0.77
1.38
0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
Bulls Steers
MM
NP
1.23
1.16
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
1.22
1.24
Breakeven, $/lb
Bulls
Steers
P < 0.01
6.03 % 1.22
1.17
1.24
1.14
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
1.22
1.24
1.26
Bulls Steers
MM
NP
Conclusions
• Steers had improved feedlot performance, and lower morbidity resulting in lower breakevens
• MM did not improve breakevens and cost of gain of steers
• No difference in feedlot performance or • No difference in feedlot performance or economics due to castration methods
• MM improved breakevens and cost of gain in bulls
• 600 lb bulls should be purchased about 6% back from steers ~ $8-$10 in today’s market
Castration trials
• Method
– Banding vs. knife cut
– No difference in technique, prefer knife cut
• Timing
– Arrival - best
– Delayed 2 weeks – too many in hospital
– Delayed to 1st reimplant - staggy
Effects of intact males on arrival
• Bulls have 140% higher morbidity rates than steers
• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers
• Bulls have 163% higher railer rates than steers
Renfro et al., 2004
It’s gonna be a wreck when…..
Effects of intact males on arrival
• Bulls have 140% higher morbidity rates than steers
• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers
• Bulls have 163% higher railer rates than steers
Renfro et al., 2004
Castration trials
• Method
– Banding vs. knife cut
– Prefer knife cut
– Lidocaine vs. no lidocaine– Lidocaine vs. no lidocaine
• Timing
– Arrival - best
– Delayed 2 weeks – too many in hospital
– Delayed to 1st reimplant - staggy
Treatments
1. CONTROL (CNT)
2. BAND (BND)
3. BAND W/ LIDOCAINE (BNDL)
4. SURGERY (SURG)
5. SURGERY W/ LIDOCAINE (SURGL)
DMI vs Method use, Method*Week Interaction
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DM
I BND
SURG
P=0.4747 P=0.5226
P=0.0550
INTERACTION BETWEEN WEEKS---DMI BND VS SURG
14
15
16
17
1 2 3 4
WEEK
P=0.0360
BND VS SURG � LENGTH OF STUDY P=0.8884
LIDO VS NO LIDO � LENGTH OF STUDY P=0.2289
ADG Band vs. Surgery
2.3607c2.8709c
1.8938b
4.5184a
3
4
5
6
AD
G
INTERACTION ADG � BND VS SURG
1.4884b1.8938b
0
1
2
CNT BND BNDL SURG SURGL
AD
G
BND VS SURG � P=0.0016
LIDO VS NO LIDO � P=0.1011
CNT VS CASTRATED � P=.0001
Effect of cattle sex at arrival on
health and performance of high risk
calves during a 44-day receiving
period
L. O. Burciaga, Ph.D. Student
Performance of bulls and steers during a 44-d receiving period
Weight (kg)
Bulls Steers LSM P-value
d 0 249.0 238.0 4.34 0.008
d 15 266.8 261.9 3.97 0.21
d 30 293.4 291.0 4.07 0.57
d 44 307.1 310.0 4.15 0.49
ADG (kg)
d 0-15 1.12 1.54 0.14 0.003
d 16-30 1.76 2.03 0.08 0.002
d 31-44 1.10 1.24 .10 0.17
d 0-44 1.35 1.62 .06 <0.0001
Health of bulls and steers during a 44 d receiving period
Bulls Steers P-value
Morbidity, % 42.3 11.3 <0.0001
Mortality, % 23.4 3.9 0.0005Mortality, % 23.4 3.9 0.0005
Only one treatment, % 55.3 91.3 <0.0001
Two or more treatmentsa, %
44.7 8.7 <0.0001
Medicine cost ($) 12.30+1.63 2.65+1.63 <0.0001
Summary
• Bulls castrated on arrival have been associated with decreased performance and increased health risk compared with cattle that arrive as steers.
• Because many cow/calf producers do not castrate their calves before sale, more research is needed to address different management needed to address different management procedures that might have a positive impact on the health and performance of calves arriving as bulls.
• This is especially important because of the documented (Renfro et al., 2004) negative impact that cattle arriving as bulls has on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics, resulting in decreased hot carcass weight, yield grade, and quality grade.