The following is my research paper that I just finished for English 20-1! She's a long one, but worth the read for producers and consumers alike! Enjoy! =)
~Tessa
~Tessa
Thesis: Implanting beef cattle with growth hormones that then are to be used for human consumption is safe for consumers and greatly increases the efficiency of beef production; therefore it should remain an accepted practice in the beef industry.
I. Background of growth hormone implants in beef cattle
A. Controversy surrounding growth hormone implants
B. Introduction to growth hormone implants
C. First growth hormone implants used in beef cattle
II. Types of anabolic growth hormone implants
A. Estrogenic agents
B. Androgenic agents
C. Brands of growth hormone implants
III. How growth hormone implants work
A. Implanting procedures
B. Precautions for usage
C. Re-implanting cattle multiple times
D. Implant considerations
IV. Why use growth hormone implants
A. Improved gains
B. Improved feed efficiency
C. Economic benefits
V. Carcass quality
A. Lean red meat yield
B. Fat deposition
C. Grading of the meat
VI. Human safety of growth hormone implants
A. Opposing viewpoints
B. No such thing as “hormone free” beef
C. Hormone content of beef compared with other foods
VII. Educating Consumers
A. Cheap food policy
B. Environmental and global benefits to increased rate of production
There has been a great deal of controversy in the last two decades over whether or not growth hormone implants are safe to be used in beef cattle that are going into the market for human consumption. Many consumers are concerned that the hormones used in cattle growth implants will negatively affect their health and wellbeing; however this is an entire misconception. Implanting beef cattle with growth hormones that then are to be used for human consumption is safe for consumers and greatly increases the efficiency of beef production; therefore it should remain an accepted practice in the beef industry.
The purpose of growth hormone implants is to increase weight gain, improve feed efficiency, and promote a leaner carcass. Implants work in conjunction with the natural hormones in the animal’s body through the partitioning of nutrients to support more lean tissue or muscle growth. Estrogenic compounds in growth hormone implants stimulate the animal’s body to increase cell division resulting in increased muscle and skeletal growth rates. Androgenic compounds in growth hormone implants result in increased muscle mass by speeding up the rate of protein synthesis and slowing the rate of muscle protein degradation. Growth promoting implants have been used extensively in the production of beef cattle for over 30 years. In the 1960’s, diethylstilbestrol, a nonsteroidal synthetic estrogen was used as a feed additive. It was later found to be more convenient and effective to utilize other hormones and to have them compacted into small pellets that are implanted between the skin and cartilage of a bovine’s ear. The implant slowly releases a small amount of the artificial hormones daily for 60 to 120 days, greatly increasing feed efficiencies and average daily gain.
Growth promoting implants contain estrogenic compounds (estradiol benzoate, estradiol 17B, zeranol) and/or androgenic compounds (testosterone, trenbolone acetate (TBA) in combination with estradiol benzoate or estradiol 17ß). [1] Estrogenic implants promote the structural growth of the animal, while androgenic implants promote an increase in muscle mass. The combination of both compounds in a single implant produces a dual result of increased skeletal growth and muscle mass.
There are many brands of implants available with varying combinations of active ingredients. Each type of implant is intended for use in a specific age range of cattle to achieve optimum results. Ralgro, Synovex C, and Component E-C are intended for use in calves that are still on the mother cows. These will increase growth and development to add profit for the rancher when it comes time to sell the calves at an auction mart, to a backgrounder, or directly to a feedlot. Compudose, Synovex S, Component E-S, Synovex H, and Component E-H are intended for use in feeder cattle that are being grown to a larger weight before being finished for slaughter. These will increase lean meat yield and muscle development which will increase the number of pounds that will be sold to the feedlot. Finally, terminal implants such as Component TE-S, Component TE-H, Synovex Plus, Synovex Choice, Revalor S, and Revalor H are intended for use in cattle that are being finished, most often in a feedlot. [2] These will also increase lean meat yield and muscle development to increase the value of the carcass, thus increasing profit for the feedlot operator. The above mentioned implants are all registered for use in Canadian cattle intended for human consumption.
Implanting is only effective at increasing carcass quality and profit for ranchers if the proper procedure is followed. Before inserting the implant, ensure that the implant gun is working and loaded properly. The implant, in pelleted form, must be inserted between the skin and cartilage in the middle third of the back of the bovine’s ear using an approved implant gun. If the tip of the ear is missing, the implant may be carefully implanted into the last third of the ear. The ear is the only approved place for the implant to be inserted as the ear is removed and discarded at the time of slaughter preventing any food safety concerns. Implants should never be placed in any other location on the bovine’s body. After inserting the pellets hold your finger over them as you retract the needle to prevent movement of the pellets. Improper implanting technique can cause a significant loss of profit for the rancher. Defects of concern include abscesses, expelled implants, cartilage embedment, crushed pellets, missing pellets, and bunched pellets.
Sanitation is a major concern when implanting. The back of the ear should be free of fecal matter and dirt. This can be accomplished by simply wiping the area off with a disinfectant solution. The needle on the injection gun must be sharp, straight, and cleaned in disinfectant solution between uses. A dull, bent, or unclean needle will result in abscesses and decreased performance of the implant. Holding the animal securely in a head gate squeeze chute will make the implanting procedure safer and less stressful for both the handler and animal, as well as decreasing the chances of bending the implant gun needle.
In order to obtain maximum results from your implanting regimen it is important to implant calves as soon as possible after 45 days of age. If you already have the calf crop in for vaccinating and branding, this would be a good time to implant. It is important that you never implant replacement heifer calves intended for breeding or bull calves. There are products available for specific use in replacement heifers; however the research on the safety of these products is controversial, and if not used properly can be detrimental to future breeding potential. No growth hormone implants are safe for use on bulls. At weaning, cattle not intended for breeding should be re-implanted with a more aggressive implant, likely an estrogenic and androgenic combination implant. Growth hormone implants are slowly released and therefore re-implanting must be precisely scheduled so that hormones are maintained above the threshold level. Each brand and type of implants have varying lengths of effective hormone release. It is important to always read the label before usage.
There are many things that must be considered when choosing what will be the right implant to use, as well as what the expected returns will be after using that implant. The first points to take into consideration are the age and sex of the animals you intend to implant. As each type of implant is intended for a different purpose, it is important to know which implant will be best to achieve the desired results in animals of a specific age and gender. The next consideration that will play into the effectiveness and end result of your implant usage is the animal’s breed type. Breed type will determine frame score (how large the animal will grow to be), muscling tendencies, and lean meat yield, as well as a variety of other attributes that will directly affect how well the implant will perform and the results it will give you. Generally a less aggressive (estrogenic) implant strategy is used on exotic breeds as they gain quickly but are harder to finish, while a more aggressive (estrogenic/TBA combination) implant strategy is used on British breeds as they are typically easier to finish and an aggressive implanting approach will yield a larger framed carcass at the point of finish. The number of days on feed and the quality of feed will also determine the implant that would be best suited to your operation and the outcome of using that implant.
There are many reasons why producers choose to implement growth hormone implants into their operation. Improved gains, feed efficiency, and economic benefits are the three main reasons growth hormone implants make sense to many cow/calf operators, backgrounders, and feedlot operators. Growth hormone implants will improve the amount of pounds gained by cattle in a shorter period of time with the same amount of feed; this is referred to as rate of gain and efficiency of gain. Proper implanting generally results in a 5 to 10% improvement in feed efficiency. Typically, implanting calves around two months of age will result in 11 to 22 lbs. of added weight at weaning time. During the backgrounder or stocker stage of a bovine’s life it can be expected that an estrogenic implant will increase daily gain 15 to 20%. Using an estrogenic and androgenic compound will further increase daily gain 3 to 5%. In finishing or fattening programs, weight gain and reducing the cost of that gain is of the utmost importance. A summary of 37 trials entitled “Effects of Estrogenic and Androgenic Implants on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Meat Tenderness in Feedlot Steers: A Review” performed by S. Duckett, D. Wagner, and F. Owens of the University of Nebraska concluded that compared with non-implanted cattle, implanted cattle had 18% greater gain, 6% greater intake, and 8% better feed to gain ratio. [3] To a producer in the cattle industry today, it makes good economic sense to follow an implant program, particularly if you are a feedlot operator who generates profit largely based upon rate and efficiency of gain. Proper scheduling and use of implants should return in excess of $10 per $1 spent. [4] This added return on the dollars producers spend feeding the cattle reduces their cost of production. Producers have always appreciated the added returns growth hormone implants generate, however, particularly since Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, has created a down turn in the beef industry, the use of growth hormone implants can often times be the difference between losing money, breaking even, or making a profit.
Growth hormone implants have two varying effects on the quality of the beef carcass; enhanced protein deposition while diminishing fat accretion. Cattle implanted with growth promoting hormones tend to yield leaner red meat, however this affects their quality grade due to the fact that they display less intramuscular fat deposition, also known as marbling, which plays a large role in how a carcass is graded. Generally, this problem can be minimized by properly designing implanting schedules to match the age, weight, genetics, and nutritional management of the cattle.
Many health conscious people in the world today have believed the myth that consuming beef that has been implanted with growth promoting hormones will adversely affect their health, however this myth is entirely that… a myth. There is little to no evidence that supports this theory, while there is a significant backing of evidence that proves the safety of growth hormone use in beef intended for human consumption. The safety of human consumption of beef from cattle that have been implanted with growth promoting hormones as compared with that of cattle that have not been implanted with growth promoting hormones is nearly identical. Since the 1950’s, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Organization for Animal Health, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the FAO/WHO Food Standards Commission) have consistently concluded that implants create no health hazard to the consumers of meat from implanted beef cattle. All approved implant products have a zero day withdrawal. This means that the meat from the animal is safe for humans to eat at any time after the animal is treated. Growth hormone implants are always placed in the ear, which is promptly removed at the time of slaughter, thus resulting to absolutely no contact with the meat of the animal. [5] There is no such thing as “hormone free beef”, as all cattle have naturally occurring hormones. Cattle that have been implanted with growth promoting hormones have minutely higher amounts of these hormones. The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, Report on Use of Hormonal Substances in Animals, Dec., 1986. stated that 3 ounces of beef from a non-implanted steer contained 1.3 nanograms of estrogen, while 3 ounces of beef from an implanted steer contained 1.9 nanograms of estrogen. In comparison to other plant and animal products that are consumed by Canadians daily, these are very low levels of estrogen. 8 fluid ounces of milk contains 35.5 nanograms of estrogen, 3 ounces of peas contains 336 nanograms of estrogen, 2 ounces of hen’s eggs contains 1,750 nanograms of estrogen, 3 ounces of cabbage contains 2,016 nanograms of estrogen, 3 ounces of wheat germ contains 3,400 nanograms of estrogen, and 3 ounces of soybean oil contains 1,680,000 nanograms of estrogen. There is no evidence that supports the theory that growth hormone implants in beef cause cancer or early onset of puberty in humans. Among all animal and plant derived foods, beef has some of the lowest hormone levels, and in comparison to other products that are ingested by humans daily, only miniscule amounts of hormones are present. In fact, it was said at the Oklahoma State University Implant Symposium in May of 1997 that you would need 125,000 lbs. of beef to even come close to the amount of estrogen found in one birth control pill. [6]
The cheap food policy is an unofficial government pact to keep Canadian food affordable for consumers. Although this sounds great in theory, the farmers and ranchers who produce that food are who take the fall. Canadian consumers demand beef at a certain “affordable” price, and although feed prices and markets change for the cattle producers, this seemingly cannot be carried over into the price of beef at the supermarket. In order to offset these fluctuating costs, as well as the poor economy and market for beef due to BSE, producers find the most cost effective way to make a profit, or in many cases today, at least break even, is to implant their cattle with growth hormone implants. If consumers wish to eat beef that has not been implanted, however still contains nearly the same levels of naturally occurring hormones, they must be willing to pay far over and above the supermarket price for this “niche market” product.
The increased rate and efficiency at which beef can be produced due to growth hormone implants benefits the producer, consumer, and the environment because cattle are alive for less time, thus producing less methane gas, and they are consuming less food which could be used to directly feed humans. Efficiency will be needed to feed a growing population as the global population increases by approximately 78 million people every year. By 2030, it is predicted that more than 8 billion people will inhabit the Earth. In the next decade an additional 1 billion meat consumers will exist in emerging countries, including China and India.
Demand for animal protein will double in the next twenty years, which means most of the meat supply will need to come from developing countries. Genetic diversity in the animal protein industry may be needed in the future to keep up with increasing meat protein demand. [7]
According to Dennis Avery, Director at the Center for Global Food Issues, “Using growth hormone implants in beef production reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 40% as well as reducing the land required to produce 1 lb. of beef by 67%.” [8] In short, hormone implants are a win-win-win for the cattle producer, the world's protein supply and the environment. They are absolutely safe and effective. And honestly, if beef from implanted cattle really had massive amounts of hormones in it, wouldn't body builders be eating it by the bucket-load instead of using steroids?
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Material #1, Estrogen Content of Various Foods and Estrogen Levels Produced Daily in Humans, http://beef.unl.edu/beefreports/symp-1995-03-XIV.shtml
Supplementary Material #2, Proper Implant Placement, http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/beef/baa07s02.html
Work Cited
Internet:
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2011). Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals. Online, Available: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436.htm May 31, 2011.
Floyd, James G. Jr. and Van Dyke, Norwood J. and Kriese, Lisa A. (1997). Implants for Growth Promotion in Beef Cattle. Online, Available: http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1020/ May 31, 2011.
Griffin, Dee and Mader, Terry. (2000). Beef Cattle Implants. Online, Available: http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/docs/Utah_University_Implants.pdf May 30, 2011.
Mader, Terry Dr. (1997). Growth Promotants for Cattle. Online, Available: http://www2.veterinaria.uchile.cl/publicacion/congresoxi/prafesional/bovi/3.doc May 30, 2011.
Manitoba Government. (2010). Growth Implants for Beef Cattle. Online, Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/beef/baa07s02.html May 30, 2011.
ZoBell, Dale and Chapman, Kim C. and Heaton, Kevin and Birkelo, Carl. (2000). Beef Cattle Implants. Online, Available: http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/744/beef-cattle-implants May 31, 2011.
Other:
Dr. Gary Sides. Implants and MGA Use in Feedlot Cattle PowerPoint Presentation. September 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment