Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:58:17.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of a β-agonist (clenbuterol) on growth, carcass composition, protein and energy metabolism of veal calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. E. V. Williams ,
L. Pagliani ,
G.M. Innes ,
K. Pennie ,
C. I. Harris  and
P. Garthwaite
P. E. V. Williams
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
L. Pagliani
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
G.M. Innes
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
K. Pennie
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
C. I. Harris
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
P. Garthwaite
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Twenty-two British Friesian bull calves were used in a comparative slaughter experiment to determine the effects of a β-agonist (clenbuterol) on body composition and energy retention. Four calves were slaughtered at 18 d of age and constituted the initial slaughter group. Of the remaining calves, eight (group A, controls) were given milk replacer only, and ten calves (groups B and C, five calves per group) were given milk replacer plus clenbuterol(O.1 and 1.0 mg clenbuterol/kg milk replacer equivalent to approximately 2 and 20 μg/kg body-weight respectively over the 105±3 d of the experimental period). Calves were slaughtered over the weight range 146–177 kg.

2. Clenbuterol had no significant effect on dry matter (DM) intake, daily live-weight gain or feed conversion ratio. DM digestibility of the milk replacer was not affected by treatment. Nitrogen balance was measured on three separate occasions starting when the calves weighed approximately 60, 110 and 130 kg. N retention was increased over the experimental period in clenbuterol-treated calves, although the effect only achieved significance in calves weighing approximately 110 kg live weight (P < 0.05).

3. Clenbuterol (20 μg/kg body-weight) increased estimated mean daily N retention in the carcass of the calves from 22 to 25 g whilst N retention in the non-carcass components decreased from 10 to 8 g/d. Effects of clenbuterol on N retention occurred mainly in skeletal muscle. Fat in both carcass and non-carcass components was reduced by treatment with clenbuterol. The total energy content of live-weight gain was reduced from 1077 to 897 MJ in clenbuterol-treated calves and mean daily heat production was estimated to increase from 23.1 in controls to 25.9 MJ/d in calves in group C.

4. In calves of mean live weight during balance of 120 and 136 kg, clenbuterol significantly increased daily urinary creatinine excretion and in 120 kg calves NT-methylhistidine was significantly decreased (P < 0.05). Based on estimates of muscle mass from urinary creatinine and protein degradation fromN7-methylhistidine NT-methylhistidine excretion, the fractional breakdown rate of muscle protein in clenbuterol-treated calves was only 0.66 of that in the controls when the calves weighed 120 kg.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 417 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, G., Bennett, F. W. & Gemmel, R. T. (1975). Journal of Physiology 244, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afting, E.G., Bernhardt, W., Janzen, R. W. C. & Rothig, H.-J. (1981) Biochemical Journal 200, 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. (1985). In Control and Manipulation of Animal Growth, Nottingham University Easter School, pp. 21–37 [Buttery, P. J., Haynes, N. B. and Lindsay, D. B., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Atkinson, T., Fowler, V. R. F., Garton, G. A. & Lough, A. K. (1972). Analyst, London 97, 562–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. K., Dalrymple, R. H., Ingle, D. L. & Ricks, C. A. (1984). Journal of Animal Science 59, 1256–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1969). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants, p. 63. London: Hutchison and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, R. H., Baker, P. K., Gingher, P. E., Ingle, D. L., Pensack, J. M. & Ricks, C. A. (1984). Poultry Science 63, 2376–2383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, London 95, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, P. W., Rothwell, N. J., Stock, M. J.Winter, P. D. (1984). Bioscience Reports 4, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graystone, J. E. (1968). In Human Growth, p. 182 [Cheek, D. B., editor]. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P., Quirke, J. F., Bomann, W., Allen, P., McEwan, J., Fitzsimons, J. & Kotzian, J. (1986). In Nottingham Feed Manufacturers Conference. London: Butterworths (In the Press).Google Scholar
Harris, C. I. (1981). Biochemical Journal 194, 1011–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. I. & Milne, G. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawk, P. B., Oser, B. L. & Summerson, W. H. (1947). In Practical Physiological Chemistry, p. 506. San Francisco: McGraw Hill Co.Google Scholar
Jones, R. W., Easter, R. A, McKeith, F. K., Dalrymple, R. H., Maddock, H. M. & Bechter, P. J. (1985). Journa of Animal Science 61, 905–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1985). Meat Science 4th ed, p. 61. Oxford: Pergamon International Library.Google Scholar
Ledger, H. P., Gilliver, B. & Robb, J. M. (1973). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobley, G. E., Milne, V., Lovie, J. M., Reeds, P. J. & Pennie, K. (1980). British Journal of Nutrition 43, 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuler, V. Ter. & Molnar, S. (1975). Zeitschrift fur Tierphysiologie, Tierernahrung und Futtermittelkunde 35, 243–256.Google Scholar
Millward, D. J., Bates, P. C., Grimble, G. K. & Brown, G. (1980). Biochemical Journal 190, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, R. L., Dalrymple, R. H., Cornelius, S. G., Pettigrew, J. E., Allen, C. E. (1986). Journal of Animal Science 62, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishizawa, N., Toyoda, Y., Noguchi, T., Hareyama, S., Itabashi, H. & Funabiki, R. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricks, C. A, Dalrymple, R. H., Baker, P. K. & Ingle, D. L. (1984). Journal of Animal Science 59, 1247–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon Instruments Co. Ltd (1965). Technicon Methodology Sheet N-11B. Basingstoke: Technicon Instruments Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. E. & Bell, A. W. (1976). Biology of the Neonate 28, 375–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R. F., Tume, R. K., Larsen, T. W. & Johnson, G. W. (1984). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 9, 185.Google Scholar