Hormones in animal production

Hormone-dependent sex differences in growth rate have been known for a long time. It has also been known that growth rate and FCE (feed conversion efficiency) are higher in intact males than in castrates. It was natural, then, that the availability of hormones and other natural or synthetic substances displaying hormonal activity led to experiments aiming at their use to

increase production. Beginning in the mid-1950s, DES (diethylstilboestrol) and hexoestrol were administered to cattle increasingly in the US and the UK respectively, either as feed additives or as implants, and other types of substances also gradually became available. In general, such treatment has resulted in 10–15% increases in daily gains, similar improvements in FCE and improvement of carcass quality (increased lean/fat ratio). Thus there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of energy required per unit weight of protein produced (1,2), and the economic implications of this have been great.

While the use of hormonally active substances in animal production rose, opposition to their use also increased, because of the theoretical possibility that residues in edible tissues might endanger consumers. The factors leading to the ban on DES in the US, first imposed in 1973, have been described (3). Several reports confirm that DES endangers the health of animals and man, when repeatedly used in large doses (4,5). However, as regards risks due to the presence of residues in meat produced according to regulations, no documented deleterious effects have ever been reported in man, either from DES or any other substance with hormonal activity.

A distinction should be made between the hormones as such, for which the metabolism in the body is relatively well known, and synthetic or other substances for whose metabolic inactivation the body may not possess the enzymes necessary. When natural hormones are used in animal production, claims of zero-tolerance residue levels are not meaningful, since these compounds occur in detectable and highly variable concentrations in body fluids as well as in the tissues of all animals, treated or not (6,7). For other substances with hormonal activity the situation is different. However, when residue levels are extremely low, it seems reasonable to weigh the potential risks against the undisputed positive effects some of these compounds have in animal protein production.

This paper will discuss types of substances with hormonal activity currently in use or under investigation, their effects, mechanism of action, metabolism/elimination, tissue levels, risks to the consumer and their economic importance. Finally, other avenues to increased animal production as alternatives to use of hormones will be briefly envisaged. For the sake of simplicity the term hormone will be used, even if incorrectly, to cover all substances with hormonal activity, whether natural or synthetic. Since much information on the question collected before 1975 has been reviewed previously (8), the main emphasis will be placed here on research since that time.

Hormones in animal production



Copyright: Khoa Chăn nuôi - Học viện Nông nghiệp Việt Nam
Trâu Quỳ - Gia Lâm - Hà Nội
Tel: (0243) 827 6653 / Fax: / Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Switch mode views: