Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2026
09:08
Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants
Published on: May 14, 2020
Associations of genetic markers in cattle receiving differing implant protocols
D A King1, S D Shackelford, T G McDaneld
1USDA-ARS, Roman L. Hruska US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933-0166. andy.king@ars.usda.gov
Journal of Animal Science
|July 7, 2012
Summary
Growth implants and genetic markers interact, affecting cattle growth and meat quality. While implants boost growth, they can reduce tenderness, and genetic selection must account for these complex interactions.
Area of Science:
- Animal Science
- Genetics
- Meat Science
Background:
- Growth-promoting implants are widely used in beef production to enhance performance.
- Genetic markers (SNP) are associated with economically important traits like growth and meat quality.
- Understanding the interaction between implants and genetics is crucial for optimizing beef production systems.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the interaction between growth-promoting implant protocols and genetic markers on cattle growth, carcass traits, and meat tenderness.
- To determine how different implant strategies influence the expression of genetic predispositions for growth and quality.
Main Methods:
- Two implant protocols (mild and aggressive) were applied to steers and heifers.
- Animals were genotyped for 47 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) linked to growth and carcass traits.
- Body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG), carcass measurements, and meat tenderness (slice shear force, intact desmin) were analyzed.
Main Results:
- The aggressive implant protocol increased LM area and tenderness indicators but decreased marbling and fat thickness.
- Growth-related SNP were associated with BW and ADG, while tenderness-related SNP affected slice shear force and intact desmin.
- Interactions were observed, with growth alleles amplifying aggressive implant effects and tenderness alleles being mitigated by aggressive implants.
Conclusions:
- Implant protocols significantly influence growth and carcass characteristics, with trade-offs between yield and quality.
- Genetic markers for growth and tenderness show associations with performance and meat quality traits.
- Management strategies like marker-assisted selection (MAS) are needed to manage implant-genotype interactions, though they may not fully eliminate negative impacts on meat quality.
