Animal feed resources information system

Did you find the information you were looking for? Is it valuable to you? Feedipedia is encountering funding shortage. We need your help to keep providing reference-based feeding recommendations for your animals.
Would you consider donating? If yes, please click on the button Donate.

Any amount is the welcome. Even one cent is helpful to us!

Anderson et al., 2006. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 19 (10): 1514-1518

Document reference 
Anderson, M. J.; Blanton, J. R., Jr.; Gleghorn, J.; Kim, S. W.; Johnson, J. W., 2006. Ascophyllum nodosum supplementation strategies that improve overall carcass merit of implanted english crossbred cattle. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 19 (10): 1514-1518

English crossbred steers (n=32) and heifers (n=32) were fed a maize-based finishing diet and supplemented with 2% Ascophyllum nodosum on a DM basis to for various feeding stages of the 119 d feeding period determine the supplementation strategy that maximized intramuscular fat deposition as determined by quality grade. All cattle were implanted with Ralgro on d 36 of the trial and re-implanted with Revalor-S or Revalor-H on d 92. Cattle were blocked by sex and divided into one control and three treatment groups receiving Ascophyllum nodosum. Treatment 1 (trt 1) received Ascophyllum nodosum from d 36 to 50 of the feeding period, trt 2 received Ascophyllum nodosum for the last 14 d of the feeding period, and trt 3 which received Ascophyllum nodosum for both d 36-50 and the last 14 d of the feeding period. Cattle were weighed initially (3854.53 kg) and every 28 d following until they reach an average BW of 5547.46 kg. No effect for Ascophyllum nodosum supplementation was found on measured performance characteristics. All treatment groups supplemented with Ascophyllum nodosum had higher actual marbling scores (p<0.05) than controls. Trt 1 was found to have a highest marbling score (572.5; p<0.05), whereas the control group having the lowest marbling score (473.8). Trt 1 had a higher quality grade (5.25; p<0.05) than the control (3.94) group, but did not differ from trt 2 (4.56; p=0.105) and trt 3 (4.75; p=0.236) where high Select=4, and low Choice=5. Trt 2 did not differ from trt 3 (p=0.655), or the control group (p=0.140) for quality grade. However, trt 3 did tend to differ (p=0.057) from the control group for quality grade. Control group animals graded 25% Choice, 62.5% Select; trt 1 graded 75% Choice, 18.8% Select; trt 2 graded 62.5% Choice, 25% Select and trt 3 graded 56.3% Choice and 31.2% Select. Overall, treatment groups had a 39.6% increase in Choice quality grade and a 37.5% decrease in Select quality grade when compared to the control animals.

Citation key 
Anderson et al., 2006