Table 5.

Feedlot and carcass characteristics of calves that were treated with different, preweaning anthelmintic treatments

Item	Treatment1
	DOR	EPR	SEM2	P-value3
BW, kg
Initial	347	354	9.1	0.23
Reimplant	432	443	7.6	0.08
Final	545	550	6.8	0.27
Performance, kg
ADG	1.53	1.53	0.15	0.91
Health
Treated, %	22.4	13.6	---	0.06
Carcass Quality
HCW5, kg	341	343	4.4	0.43
Dress6, %	61.5	61.8	0.00	0.20
Backfat, cm.	1.37	1.35	0.05	0.72
KPH7, %	2.29	2.22	0.05	0.06
Ribeye area8, cm.2	81.76	82.15	0.94	0.58
Yield grade9	2.49	2.55	0.08	0.35
Marbling score10	1083	1097	9.23	0.13
Quality grade11	12.30	12.52	0.10	0.03
% QG Distribution12
Avg choice or Higher	40.38	51.43	---	0.03
Low choice	47.31	41.43	---	0.63
Select and lower	12.31	7.14	---	0.37

¹Treatment: DOR = doramectin (Dectomax; Zoetis Animal Health, Parsippany); EPR = eprinomectin (LongRange; Merial, Duluth, GA).

²Larger SEM presented (n = 238 DOR; n = 259 EPR).

³ P-value: Significant P ≤ 0.05; Tendency 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

⁴Hot carcass weight.

⁵Dressing percent.

⁶Kidney, pelvic, heart fat.

⁷Marbling score: small: 1,000⁰, modest: 1,100⁰, moderate: 1,200⁰, etc.

⁸USDA quality grade: 12: Choice^-, 13: Choice⁰, 14: Choice⁺, etc.

⁹Percentage of steers in each treatment by quality grade, within treatment total is 100%.