Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T02:53:20.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of the growth promotant Synovex-H® on growth, resistance to parasites and reproduction of cattle heifers of three breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. E. Frisch  and
R. A. Hunter
J. E. Frisch
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Production, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, 4702 Queensland, Australia
R. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Production, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, 4702 Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Synovex-H®, a combination of testosterone propionate and oestradiol benzoate, was implanted on three occasions at about 90-day intervals into Hereford × Shorthorn (HS), Brahman (B) and BX(B × HS) heifers to try to increase live weights and hence pregnancy rates at first breeding. Half of both the implanted and nonimplanted heifers of each breed was treated every 3 weeks to control cattle ticks and gastro-intestinal helminths. Treatment to control these parasites increased live weights, the increase depending on the breed. Implanting with Synovex-H also increased growth, the magnitude of the increase depending on both breed and treatment to control parasites. When parasites were present in significant numbers in the environment, the implanted groups had higher tick and helminth burdens and, in consequence, their live weight gains in response to the implant were lower than those of the nonimplanted group. The reason for the increase in susceptibility to parasites of the implanted group was not sought. It is suggested that it is associated with the presence, either alone or in combination, of the androgen and oestrogen components of Synovex-H.

By the start of the 10-week breeding season, 290 days after the last dose of Synovex-H was implanted, previous advantages of the implanted groups in live weight had been eroded to the point where the differences between groups were no longer statistically significant. Subsequent fertility both as maidens and as first-calf heifers was generally significantly lower in the previously implanted groups of all breeds. Calves born to implanted heifers were not as heavy as those born to nonimplanted heifers both at weaning and 120 days after weaning. The particular regimen of use of Synovex-H followed in this study cannot be recommended if heifers are to be used for breeding.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 107 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Frisch, J. E. (1981). Factors affecting resistance to ecto- and endoparasites of cattle in tropical areas and the implications for selection. In Isotopes and Radiation in Parasilology IV. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1987). Physiological reasons for heterosis in growth of Bos indicus × Bos taurus. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109, 213–230.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1984). An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 137–153.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E., Munro, R. K. & O'Neill, C. J. (1987). Some factors related to calf crops of Brahman, Brahman crossbred and Hereford × Shorthorn cows in a stressful tropical environment. Animal Production Science 15, 1–26.Google Scholar
Grossman, C. J. (1984). Regulation of the immune system by sex steroids. Endocrine Reviews 5, 435–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossman, C. J. (1985). Interactions between gonadal steroids and the immune system. Science 227, 257–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laster, D. B., Glimp, H. A. & Gregory, K. E. (1972). Age and weight at puberty and conception in different breed and breed crosses of beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 34, 1031–1036.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. R., Allin, J. C., Herschler, R. C. & Miller, T. A. (1985). Synovex® implants: re-implantation and fertility in beef heifers. Agri-Practice 8, 13–18.Google Scholar
Moller, S. (1984). Possible fertility effects of zeranol in yearling heifers. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 32, 157–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, L. A., Perry, T. W., Stob, M. & Herber, D. A. (1972). Effect of DES and RAL on reproduction of heifers. Journal of Animal Science 35, 250 (abstract).Google Scholar
Sawyer, G. J. & Barker, D. J. (1988). Growth promotants in cattle in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 65, 101–108.Google Scholar
Short, R. E. & Bellows, R. A. (1971). Relationships among weight gains, age at puberty and reproductive performance in heifers. Journal of Animal Science 32, 127–131.Google Scholar