Table 7A.
Model-adjusted* means (SEM) and corresponding P-values for carcass characteristics by treatment group for steers with a WS = 1.
| Parameter | Saline1 | FTS1 | TIL1 | TIL + FTS1 | P-value FTSα | P-value TILβ | P-value TIL + FTSδ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCW2, lbs | 924.4 (6.8) | 915.2 (4.9) | 926.2 (4.9) | 922.7 (4.9) | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.61 | |
| Ribeye area | 15.1 (0.2) | 15.3 (0.2) | 15.3 (0.2) | 15.3 (0.1) | 0.45 | 0.58 | 0.86 | |
| Marbling | 462.8 (11.1) | 458.2 (8.0) | 487.6 (8.0) | 482.8 (7.8) | 0.59 | <0.01 | 0.99 | |
| Backfat | 0.57 (0.02) | 0.55 (0.01) | 0.58 (0.01) | 0.60 (0.01) | 0.68 | 0.08 | 0.26 | |
| Calculated Yield Grade | 2.9 (0.1) | 2.6 (0.1) | 3.0 (0.1) | 2.9 (0.1) | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.29 | |
| aYield Grade (N = 891)*** | 1 | 5.3% (7) | 9.9% (25) | 10.7% (27) | 7.5% (19) | **Model did not converge | ||
| 2 | 39.8% (53) | 39.5% (100) | 42.1% (106) | 39.5% (100) | ||||
| 3 | 38.3% (51) | 36.8% (93) | 36.1% (91) | 39.9% (101) | ||||
| 4 | 12.8% (17) | 12.6% (32) | 10.7% (27) | 11.5% (29) | ||||
| 5 | 3.8% (5) | 1.2% (3) | 0.4% (1) | 1.6% (4) | ||||
| N | 133 | 253 | 252 | 253 | ||||
| aQuality Grade (N = 894) | Prime | 2.3% (3) | 2.4% (6) | 1.6% (4) | 2.7% (7) | 0.73 | 0.81 | 0.66 |
| Choice | 61.8% (81) | 65.0% (165) | 62.9% (158) | 59.3% (153) | ||||
| Select | 32.8% (43) | 30.3% (77) | 31.5% (79) | 32.2% (83) | ||||
| Other | 3.1% (4) | 2.4% (6) | 4.0% (10) | 5.8% (15) | ||||
| N | 131 | 254 | 251 | 258 | ||||
Mixed models with a random effect to account for lack of independence among treatment groups within pens, pens within 2 different sites, and sites within 3 different processing plants.
Each cell within the Yield and Quality grade outcomes reflects the raw proportions and counts for each treatment group.
Insufficient observations to generate a model-adjusted estimate within the hierarchical structure of the model. Due to non-convergence of the model, the effect of “processing plant” was removed from the random effect and was included as a covariate in the model for “yield grade”. However, the model still did not converge within this WS stratum.
Total number of steers in each treatment group for Yield and Quality Grade is specified. The proportion of missing data was the same for all treatment groups.
Saline, negative control; FTS, Flunixin transdermal solution; TIL, tildipirosin; and TIL + FTS, concurrent administration of TIL and FTS.
HCW, Hot Carcass Weight.
P-values reflect the overall effect of FTS, TIL, and their interaction, respectively. P-values for each main effect reflect a model-adjusted average between treatments incorporating the product compared to those that do not. For example, the P-value for the FTS main effect reflects the comparison between treatments that implement FTS (i.e., FTS and TIL + FTS) vs. those that do not (i.e., Saline + TIL). Only when the P-value for the interaction is significant (P ≤ 0.05) are direct comparison made between the four treatment groups.
P-value for main effect of Flunixin transdermal solution.
P-value for main effect of tildipirosin.
P-value for interaction of tildipirosin and Flunixin transdermal solution.