Study: Zilmax Has No Apparent Detrimental Effect on Cattle Health

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

The cattle feed additive Zilmax has no noticeable detrimental effect on cattle health or well-being, according to research by scientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service.

The study was undertaken after Zilmax's maker, Merck Animal Health, temporarily suspended sales of the additive last year when concerns emerged in some quarters that it might cause lameness in cattle, said Ty Schmidt, a UNL animal scientist, who worked with colleagues including Jeff Carroll and Nicole Sanchez, both of USDA-ARS.

During the 26-day study, scientists collected blood, via catheters; body temperature; and video images from 20 heifers, which were divided into two groups, with half receiving Zilmax at the recommended dose and half not receiving it. On the last day of the trial, four days after Zilmax supplementation was discontinued, heifers were exposed to a simulated stress event to mimic the stress response that would be anticipated in cattle being shipped from the feedlot to packing plant.  At the conclusion of the trial, heifers were harvested at UNL and their hearts, liver, lungs, kidneys and adrenal glands were studied.

Results from the study demonstrated some differences in physiological and endocrine markers of stress and muscle accretion in heifers that were supplemented with Zilmax compared to heifers not fed Zilmax. Heifers fed Zilmax had an increase in parameters that indicate increased muscle mass. The increase in these parameters was expected, as the drug label for Zilmax includes statements pertaining to increases in creatinine and creatine phosphokinase, Schmidt said.

Results from this study, he added, also demonstrated that heifers supplemented with Zilmax had a decreased production of the stress hormone cortisol, and decreased body temperature during the simulated stress event. Histopathology of the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and adrenal glands revealed some differences between the heifers supplemented with Zilmax and the heifers not receiving Zilmax. The livers and right adrenal gland of the Zilmax heifers were slightly smaller than heifers that were not fed Zilmax, but there was no difference in lungs, kidneys, or heart.

"Overall, the results of this trial indicate that while there are variations in the body temperature, endocrine and metabolic parameters and histopathology of major organs of Zilmax supplemented heifers, these differences are minor and show no indication that supplementation of Zilmax is detrimental to the health or well-being cattle," Schmidt said.

In addition to Schmidt, Carroll and Sanchez, others who participated in the study were: Steve Jones and David Steffen, UNL, and graduate students Joe Buntyn and Sara Serien, also of UNL.



Comments (5) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

JA    
July, 16, 2014 at 09:36 AM

"20 heifers, which were divided into two groups, with half receiving Zilmax at the recommended dose and half not receiving it." Recommended dose, non-stressed while on-feed (simulated shipping stress only), was that the problem in commercial situations?

JA    
CO  |  July, 16, 2014 at 09:36 AM

"20 heifers, which were divided into two groups, with half receiving Zilmax at the recommended dose and half not receiving it." Recommended dose, non-stressed while on-feed (simulated shipping stress only), was that the problem in commercial situations?

MikeS.    
Kansas  |  July, 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

As clean as it is, I can't believe humans don't use it. Make little common sense and less financial sense when consumers are becoming more informed about the food they eat, the prices they are willing to pay and that we give them beef that is locally and carefully managed, made it more flavorful(didn't zilmax have issues with taste?), make it more tender(again where was the report on zilmax and commodity beef) and USA BEEF. It pays premiums when you sell (even direct) with that in mind. Without question, we haven't suffered on prices from not having your growth additive shoved down everyones throat as a miracle snake oil fix all.

MikeS.    
Kansas  |  July, 16, 2014 at 10:07 PM

As clean as it is, I can't believe humans don't use it. Make little common sense and less financial sense when consumers are becoming more informed about the food they eat, the prices they are willing to pay and that we give them beef that is locally and carefully managed, made it more flavorful(didn't zilmax have issues with taste?), make it more tender(again where was the report on zilmax and commodity beef) and USA BEEF. It pays premiums when you sell (even direct) with that in mind. Without question, we haven't suffered on prices from not having your growth additive shoved down everyones throat as a miracle snake oil fix all.

Anonymous    
Idaho  |  August, 22, 2014 at 12:28 PM

"Without question, we haven't suffered on prices from not having your growth additive shoved down everyones throat as a miracle snake oil fix all." We haven't seen an increase in beef prices since last August?


FourTrax(R) Foreman 4x4

Honda’s line of all-terrain vehicles has always been the machinery farmers and ranchers counted on for strong, rugged, reliable performance. ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight