A finishing trial was conducted to compare the response to three implant strategies on performance and carcasscharacteristics of feedlot steers: 1) ComponentTE-IS with Tylan followed with Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S); 2) Component TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200); or 3) Revalor XS (Rev-XS) single implant. Final BW, DMI and ADG were unaffected (P \u3e 0.05) by implant strategy. Steers on the TE-IS/ S treatment had a lower (P \u3c 0.01) feed:gain ratio (F:G) compared to those on the Rev-XS and TE-200 treatments. F:G calculated on a live basis was improved (P \u3c 0.05) for reimplantedcattle compared to those on the TE-200 treatment; F:G for the Rev-XSwas intermediate. No differences (P \u3e 0.05) were observed for HCW, 12th rib fat, percentage USDA Choice and calculated USDA yield grade among treatments. Cattle implanted with Rev-XS had greater (P \u3c 0.05) marbling scores than those implanted with TE-IS/S. Carcasses from TE-IS/S implanted steers presented larger (P = 0.03) longissimus muscle areas than both the TE-200 and Rev-XS treatment groups. These results suggest that F:G was improved with reimplanting

Erickson, Galen E.

Furman, Stephanie A

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Nichols, Cody A

Sindt, Justin J

Vasconcelos, Judson

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
2010 
Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two Common 
Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing Steers 
Cody A. Nichols 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cody.nichols@huskers.unl.edu 
Judson Vasconcelos 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jvasconcelos2@unl.edu 
Galen E. Erickson 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu 
Stephanie A. Furman 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, sfurman2@unl.edu 
Justin J. Sindt 
Elanco Animal Health 
See next page for additional authors 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Nichols, Cody A.; Vasconcelos, Judson; Erickson, Galen E.; Furman, Stephanie A.; Sindt, Justin J.; and 
Klopfenstein, Terry J., "Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in 
Beef Finishing Steers" (2010). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 576. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/576 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
Authors 
Cody A. Nichols, Judson Vasconcelos, Galen E. Erickson, Stephanie A. Furman, Justin J. Sindt, and Terry 
J. Klopfenstein 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
animalscinbcr/576 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 87 
Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two
Common Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing Steers
Cody A. Nichols
Judson T. Vasconcelos
Galen E. Erickson
Stephanie A. Furman
Justin J. Sindt
Terry J. Klopfenstein1
Summary
A finishing trial was conducted to 
compare the response to three implant 
strategies on performance and carcass 
characteristics of feedlot steers: 1) Com-
ponent TE-IS with Tylan followed with 
Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S ); 
2) Component TE-200 with Tylan  
(TE-200); or 3) Revalor XS (Rev-XS) 
single implant. Final BW, DMI and ADG 
were unaffected (P > 0.05) by implant 
strategy. Steers on the TE-IS/ S treatment 
had a lower (P < 0.01) feed:gain ratio 
(F:G) compared to those on the Rev-XS  
and TE-200 treatments. F:G calculated on 
a live basis was improved (P < 0.05) for 
reimplanted cattle compared to those on 
the TE-200 treatment; F:G for the Rev-XS 
was intermediate. No differences  
(P > 0.05) were observed for HCW, 12th 
rib fat, percentage USDA Choice and 
calculated USDA yield grade among treat-
ments. Cattle implanted with Rev-XS had 
greater (P < 0.05) marbling scores than 
those implanted with TE-IS/S. Carcasses 
from TE-IS/S implanted steers presented 
larger (P = 0.03) longissimus muscle areas 
than both the TE-200 and Rev-XS treat-
ment groups. These results suggest that 
F:G was improved with reimplanting. 
Introduction
Revalor XS (Rev-XS; Intervet/
Shering -Plough, Millsboro, Del.) is a 
new 10-capsule implant containing 40 
mg estradiol and 200 mg trenbolone 
acetate. The last 6 capsules are coated 
with a biodegradable polymer that 
provides extended release (200 days). 
This new implant was developed to 
eliminate the need to reimplant cattle. 
Component TE-IS with Tylan (TE-IS;  
VetLife, West Des Moines, Iowa) is a 
growth promoting implant that con-
tains 16 mg estradiol, 80 mg trenbolone 
acetate, and 29 mg tylosin. Component 
TE-S with Tylan (TE-S; VetLife) is an 
implant that contains a combination 
of 24 mg estradiol, 120 mg trenbolone 
acetate, and 29 mg tylosin. These com-
pounds are typically used in programs 
in which TE-S is administered 80 days 
after the initial TE-IS implant. Com-
ponent TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200; 
VetLife) is a single implant that con-
tains 20 mg estradiol and 200 mg tren-
bolone acetate. This study evaluated 
both feedlot and carcass performance 
of cattle on a typical reimplant vs. the 
two single implant programs.
Procedure
A common reimplant program 
consisting of Component TE-IS/S was 
compared to single implant strategies 
using Component TE-200 and Revalor 
XS. A 167-day finishing trial utilized 
360 yearling steers purchased from a 
commercial order buyer (British cross-
breed; initial BW = 711 ± 48 lb) in a 
randomized complete block design ex-
periment conducted at the Panhandle 
Research Feedlot (UNL Panhandle 
Research and Extension Center). Cattle 
were limit fed (2% of BW) a 50% for-
age diet for a total of 5 days before 
the initiation of the trial. Cattle were 
individually weighed 2 consecutive 
days (day 0 and day 1) after the limit 
feeding period to obtain an initial BW. 
Body weights measured on day 0 were 
used to block the animals into 3 weight 
blocks. Cattle were stratified by BW 
within respective weight block and as-
signed randomly to 24 pens. Pens were 
assigned randomly to 1 of the 3 treat-
ments with 8 pens per treatment and 
15 steers per pen.
A 21-day step-up period was used, 
in which incremental percentages of 
dry rolled corn replaced alfalfa hay 
to allow cattle to become acclimated 
to the final finishing diet. The final 
diet consisted of 55.6% dry rolled 
corn, 30.0% wet distillers grains with 
solubles, 8.0% alfalfa hay, 6.0% liquid 
supplement, and 0.4% limestone (DM 
basis). The liquid supplement pro vided 
339 mg/hd/day Rumensin (Elanco 
Animal Health; Greenfield, Ind.) and 
85 mg/hd/d Tylan (Elanco Animal 
Health). On day 1, steers received a 
single implant of either TE-IS,  
TE-200, or Rev XS. Each implant was 
administered subcutaneously in the 
upper middle third of the ear. On day 
85, IS-S cattle were reimplanted with 
TE-S and were injected (s.c.) with 2 ml 
of Bovi-Shield Gold (Pfizer Animal 
Health, New York, N.Y.) to vaccinate 
against IBR, BVD types I and II, PI3, 
and BRSV. Because vaccinating cattle 
during reimplant is part of the proto-
col at the Scottsbluff research facility, 
any differences in feedlot performance 
when comparing the reimplanted 
cattle to the two single implant treat-
ments may be an effect of implant and 
revaccination. During time of reim-
plant, cattle in both the TE-200 and 
Rev-XS treatment groups were allowed 
to remain in their pens.
Feed bunks were visually evalu-
ated each morning and were managed 
to allow for trace amounts of feed to 
remain in each bunk before feed deliv-
ery. Cattle were individually weighed 
at the end of the trial. This weight 
(shrunk by 4%) was used to calculate 
overall live performance and dressing 
percentage. Overall carcass adjusted 
performance was calculated using 
carcass weights adjusted to a common 
dressing percentage of 63%.
Cattle were slaughtered at the JBS 
Swift plant in Greeley, Colo. Carcass 
data were collected by Diamond T 
Livestock Services (Yuma, Colo.).  
Liver scores and HCW measurements 
were taken on the day of slaughter. 
Carcass 12th rib fat, preliminary yield 
grade, percentage of KPH, marbling 
score, LM area and USDA yield and 
quality grades were recorded follow-
ing a 48-hour carcass chill. Animal 
performance and carcass data were 
Page 88 — 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.
Table 1. Performance of steers implanted with either Component TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200) or 
Revalor XS (Rev-XS) on day 1 compared to steers implanted with Component TE-IS with 
Tylan on day 1 followed by Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S) on day 85.
 TE-200 Rev-XS TE-IS/S SEM P-value
Carcass adjusted performancece
Pens, n 8 8 8  
Steers, n 127 126 126  
DOF, days 167 167 167  
Initial BW, lb 711.5 711.7 711.3 0.70 0.89
Final BW, lb 1385 1388 1410 10.9 0.23
DMI, lb/d 24.7 24.3 24.1 0.17 0.09
ADG, lb/d 4.03 4.05 4.18 0.06 0.22
G:F 0.163a 0.166a 0.173b 0.002 0.01
F:G 6.13a 6.02a 5.78b  0.01f
Overall live performanced
Final BW, lb 1400 1396 1409 9.40 0.63
ADG, lb/d 4.12 4.10 4.17 0.06 0.63
G:F 0.167a 0.169ab 0.173b 0.002 0.04
F:G 5.99a 5.92ab 5.78b  0.04f
abWithin a row means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
cAll BW are shrunk 4% except initial BW.
dOverall live performance calculated from live BW on a pen basis collected prior to study initiation and 
on day of slaughter.
eOverall carcass performance calculated using 63% dressing percentage for all three treatments.
fP-value calculated from G:F.
Table 2.    Carcass characteristics of steers implanted with either Component TE-200 with Tylan 
(TE-200) or Revalor XS (Rev-XS) on day 1 compared to steers implanted with Component 
TE-IS with Tylan on day 1 followed by Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S) on day 85.
 TE-200 Rev-XS TE-IS/S SEM P-value
Carcass characteristics
HCW, lb 873 874 888 6.85 0.23
Marblingc 575ab 592a 554b 9.90 0.04
% Choice 79.8 87.3 77.0 3.99 0.19
Fat depth, in 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.69
LM area, in2 12.8b 12.7b 13.3a 0.15 0.03
Calc. YGd 3.71 3.72 3.57 0.08 0.39
abWithin a row means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
c450 = Slight50, 500 = Small0, 520 = Small20, etc.
dCalculated as 2.5+(2.5*fat depth)-(0.32*REA)+(0.2*2.0 KPH)+(0.0038*HCW).
analyzed using the MIXED procedure 
of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C.) as 
a randomized complete block design 
with pen as the experimental unit.
Results
During the course of this trial, ears 
were examined by a VetLife representa-
tive to check for abscesses or missing 
implants. At reimplant time, cattle that 
received the Component TE-IS with 
Tylan implant presented no defects. 
On the final day of the trial, 14.4% of 
the cattle that were implanted with 
Revalor-XS had ears that were either 
abscessed or missing an implant. In 
the TE-200 and TE-IS/S treatment 
groups, 1.68% and 2.51%, respectively, 
had abscessed ears or were missing 
an implant. This difference in defects 
between the Revalor-XS treatment 
group and the Component treatments 
is attributed to the tylosin tartrate that 
is added to both of the Component 
implants used in this trial. The results 
indicate tylosin in the Component 
implants acts as a local antibacterial 
significantly reducing the occurrence 
of abscesses. The cattle in the Revalor-
XS treatment group that tested positive 
for ear abscesses most likely did not 
receive the full payout of this implant 
due to abscesses. In this study, re-
implanted cattle had lower F:G than 
Revalor-XS cattle. The decrease in F:G 
may have been in response to the Tylan 
added to each Component TE-IS and 
TE-S implant.
Implant strategy had no effect on 
feed intake (P > 0.05) (Table 1). A 
decrease in DMI was not observed for 
cattle subjected to stresses of reim-
plant. Based on carcass adjusted final 
BW, there were no differences in final 
BW or ADG. Feed efficiency (F:G) was 
(P < 0.01) impacted by implant strat-
egy. Cattle reimplanted at day 85 had 
lower F:G than both Rev-XS and TE-
200 treatments. Final BW (shrunk by 
4%) and ADG were not different  
(P = 0.07). Cattle in the TE-IS/S 
treatment group were more efficient 
(P = 0.04) than cattle in the TE-200 
group. Animals that received the  
Rev-XS treatment were intermediate 
in feed efficiency compared to the 
other two treatment groups.
Hot carcass weight, percentage 
of choice carcasses, 12th rib fat, and 
calculated yield grade were not differ-
ent (P > 0.05) across treatments  
(Table 2). Carcasses from cattle that 
received a Component TE-IS implant 
on day 1 followed by a terminal 
implant on day 85 presented larger 
(P < 0.05) LM areas (13.3 in2) than 
both the Rev-XS (12.7 in2) and TE-200 
(12.8 in2) treatment groups. The  
Rev-XS treatment group had a sig-
nificantly greater (P < 0.05) marbling 
score (592) than the TE-IS/S treatment 
group (554). Marbling scores were not 
significantly different when compar-
ing TE-200 (575) to either Rev-XS or 
TE-IS/S.
In this trial, feed efficiency was 
improved when cattle were reim-
planted rather than implanted at 
the beginning of the feeding period. 
Hormone concentration supplied 
should have been equivalent between 
Rev-XS and TE-IS/S treatments. 
Feedlot performance was not nega-
tively impacted for cattle that were 
reimplanted in this study. However, 
treating with Rev-XS significantly 
improved marbling, compared to a 
reimplant program of TE-IS followed 
by TE-S. Interestingly, marbling was 
intermediate for cattle given TE-200 
and not different from the other two 
treatments. It is not clear why differ-
ences in feed efficiency or marbling 
were observed in this study.
 
1Cody A. Nichols, graduate student, 
Galen E. Erickson, associate professor, Terry 
J. Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, 
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.; Judson 
T. Vasconcelos, assistant professor, Stephanie A. 
Furman, research manager, Panhandle Research 
and Extension Center; Justin J. Sindt, VetLife.


Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing Steers

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 2010 Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing Steers Cody A. Nichols University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cody.nichols@huskers.unl.edu Judson Vasconcelos University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jvasconcelos2@unl.edu Galen E. Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu Stephanie A. Furman University of Nebraska-Lincoln, sfurman2@unl.edu Justin J. Sindt Elanco Animal Health See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Nichols, Cody A.; Vasconcelos, Judson; Erickson, Galen E.; Furman, Stephanie A.; Sindt, Justin J.; and Klopfenstein, Terry J., "Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing Steers" (2010). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 576. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/576 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Cody A. Nichols, Judson Vasconcelos, Galen E. Erickson, Stephanie A. Furman, Justin J. Sindt, and Terry J. Klopfenstein This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/576 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 87 Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. TwoCommon Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing SteersCody A. NicholsJudson T. VasconcelosGalen E. EricksonStephanie A. FurmanJustin J. SindtTerry J. Klopfenstein1SummaryA finishing trial was conducted to compare the response to three implant strategies on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers: 1) Com-ponent TE-IS with Tylan followed with Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S ); 2) Component TE-200 with Tylan  (TE-200); or 3) Revalor XS (Rev-XS) single implant. Final BW, DMI and ADG were unaffected (P > 0.05) by implant strategy. Steers on the TE-IS/ S treatment had a lower (P < 0.01) feed:gain ratio (F:G) compared to those on the Rev-XS  and TE-200 treatments. F:G calculated on a live basis was improved (P < 0.05) for reimplanted cattle compared to those on the TE-200 treatment; F:G for the Rev-XS was intermediate. No differences  (P > 0.05) were observed for HCW, 12th rib fat, percentage USDA Choice and calculated USDA yield grade among treat-ments. Cattle implanted with Rev-XS had greater (P < 0.05) marbling scores than those implanted with TE-IS/S. Carcasses from TE-IS/S implanted steers presented larger (P = 0.03) longissimus muscle areas than both the TE-200 and Rev-XS treat-ment groups. These results suggest that F:G was improved with reimplanting. IntroductionRevalor XS (Rev-XS; Intervet/Shering -Plough, Millsboro, Del.) is a new 10-capsule implant containing 40 mg estradiol and 200 mg trenbolone acetate. The last 6 capsules are coated with a biodegradable polymer that provides extended release (200 days). This new implant was developed to eliminate the need to reimplant cattle. Component TE-IS with Tylan (TE-IS;  VetLife, West Des Moines, Iowa) is a growth promoting implant that con-tains 16 mg estradiol, 80 mg trenbolone acetate, and 29 mg tylosin. Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-S; VetLife) is an implant that contains a combination of 24 mg estradiol, 120 mg trenbolone acetate, and 29 mg tylosin. These com-pounds are typically used in programs in which TE-S is administered 80 days after the initial TE-IS implant. Com-ponent TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200; VetLife) is a single implant that con-tains 20 mg estradiol and 200 mg tren-bolone acetate. This study evaluated both feedlot and carcass performance of cattle on a typical reimplant vs. the two single implant programs.ProcedureA common reimplant program consisting of Component TE-IS/S was compared to single implant strategies using Component TE-200 and Revalor XS. A 167-day finishing trial utilized 360 yearling steers purchased from a commercial order buyer (British cross-breed; initial BW = 711 ± 48 lb) in a randomized complete block design ex-periment conducted at the Panhandle Research Feedlot (UNL Panhandle Research and Extension Center). Cattle were limit fed (2% of BW) a 50% for-age diet for a total of 5 days before the initiation of the trial. Cattle were individually weighed 2 consecutive days (day 0 and day 1) after the limit feeding period to obtain an initial BW. Body weights measured on day 0 were used to block the animals into 3 weight blocks. Cattle were stratified by BW within respective weight block and as-signed randomly to 24 pens. Pens were assigned randomly to 1 of the 3 treat-ments with 8 pens per treatment and 15 steers per pen.A 21-day step-up period was used, in which incremental percentages of dry rolled corn replaced alfalfa hay to allow cattle to become acclimated to the final finishing diet. The final diet consisted of 55.6% dry rolled corn, 30.0% wet distillers grains with solubles, 8.0% alfalfa hay, 6.0% liquid supplement, and 0.4% limestone (DM basis). The liquid supplement pro vided 339 mg/hd/day Rumensin (Elanco Animal Health; Greenfield, Ind.) and 85 mg/hd/d Tylan (Elanco Animal Health). On day 1, steers received a single implant of either TE-IS,  TE-200, or Rev XS. Each implant was administered subcutaneously in the upper middle third of the ear. On day 85, IS-S cattle were reimplanted with TE-S and were injected (s.c.) with 2 ml of Bovi-Shield Gold (Pfizer Animal Health, New York, N.Y.) to vaccinate against IBR, BVD types I and II, PI3, and BRSV. Because vaccinating cattle during reimplant is part of the proto-col at the Scottsbluff research facility, any differences in feedlot performance when comparing the reimplanted cattle to the two single implant treat-ments may be an effect of implant and revaccination. During time of reim-plant, cattle in both the TE-200 and Rev-XS treatment groups were allowed to remain in their pens.Feed bunks were visually evalu-ated each morning and were managed to allow for trace amounts of feed to remain in each bunk before feed deliv-ery. Cattle were individually weighed at the end of the trial. This weight (shrunk by 4%) was used to calculate overall live performance and dressing percentage. Overall carcass adjusted performance was calculated using carcass weights adjusted to a common dressing percentage of 63%.Cattle were slaughtered at the JBS Swift plant in Greeley, Colo. Carcass data were collected by Diamond T Livestock Services (Yuma, Colo.).  Liver scores and HCW measurements were taken on the day of slaughter. Carcass 12th rib fat, preliminary yield grade, percentage of KPH, marbling score, LM area and USDA yield and quality grades were recorded follow-ing a 48-hour carcass chill. Animal performance and carcass data were Page 88 — 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.Table 1. Performance of steers implanted with either Component TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200) or Revalor XS (Rev-XS) on day 1 compared to steers implanted with Component TE-IS with Tylan on day 1 followed by Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S) on day 85. TE-200 Rev-XS TE-IS/S SEM P-valueCarcass adjusted performancecePens, n 8 8 8  Steers, n 127 126 126  DOF, days 167 167 167  Initial BW, lb 711.5 711.7 711.3 0.70 0.89Final BW, lb 1385 1388 1410 10.9 0.23DMI, lb/d 24.7 24.3 24.1 0.17 0.09ADG, lb/d 4.03 4.05 4.18 0.06 0.22G:F 0.163a 0.166a 0.173b 0.002 0.01F:G 6.13a 6.02a 5.78b  0.01fOverall live performancedFinal BW, lb 1400 1396 1409 9.40 0.63ADG, lb/d 4.12 4.10 4.17 0.06 0.63G:F 0.167a 0.169ab 0.173b 0.002 0.04F:G 5.99a 5.92ab 5.78b  0.04fabWithin a row means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).cAll BW are shrunk 4% except initial BW.dOverall live performance calculated from live BW on a pen basis collected prior to study initiation and on day of slaughter.eOverall carcass performance calculated using 63% dressing percentage for all three treatments.fP-value calculated from G:F.Table 2.    Carcass characteristics of steers implanted with either Component TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200) or Revalor XS (Rev-XS) on day 1 compared to steers implanted with Component TE-IS with Tylan on day 1 followed by Component TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S) on day 85. TE-200 Rev-XS TE-IS/S SEM P-valueCarcass characteristicsHCW, lb 873 874 888 6.85 0.23Marblingc 575ab 592a 554b 9.90 0.04% Choice 79.8 87.3 77.0 3.99 0.19Fat depth, in 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.69LM area, in2 12.8b 12.7b 13.3a 0.15 0.03Calc. YGd 3.71 3.72 3.57 0.08 0.39abWithin a row means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).c450 = Slight50, 500 = Small0, 520 = Small20, etc.dCalculated as 2.5+(2.5*fat depth)-(0.32*REA)+(0.2*2.0 KPH)+(0.0038*HCW).analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C.) as a randomized complete block design with pen as the experimental unit.ResultsDuring the course of this trial, ears were examined by a VetLife representa-tive to check for abscesses or missing implants. At reimplant time, cattle that received the Component TE-IS with Tylan implant presented no defects. On the final day of the trial, 14.4% of the cattle that were implanted with Revalor-XS had ears that were either abscessed or missing an implant. In the TE-200 and TE-IS/S treatment groups, 1.68% and 2.51%, respectively, had abscessed ears or were missing an implant. This difference in defects between the Revalor-XS treatment group and the Component treatments is attributed to the tylosin tartrate that is added to both of the Component implants used in this trial. The results indicate tylosin in the Component implants acts as a local antibacterial significantly reducing the occurrence of abscesses. The cattle in the Revalor-XS treatment group that tested positive for ear abscesses most likely did not receive the full payout of this implant due to abscesses. In this study, re-implanted cattle had lower F:G than Revalor-XS cattle. The decrease in F:G may have been in response to the Tylan added to each Component TE-IS and TE-S implant.Implant strategy had no effect on feed intake (P > 0.05) (Table 1). A decrease in DMI was not observed for cattle subjected to stresses of reim-plant. Based on carcass adjusted final BW, there were no differences in final BW or ADG. Feed efficiency (F:G) was (P < 0.01) impacted by implant strat-egy. Cattle reimplanted at day 85 had lower F:G than both Rev-XS and TE-200 treatments. Final BW (shrunk by 4%) and ADG were not different  (P = 0.07). Cattle in the TE-IS/S treatment group were more efficient (P = 0.04) than cattle in the TE-200 group. Animals that received the  Rev-XS treatment were intermediate in feed efficiency compared to the other two treatment groups.Hot carcass weight, percentage of choice carcasses, 12th rib fat, and calculated yield grade were not differ-ent (P > 0.05) across treatments  (Table 2). Carcasses from cattle that received a Component TE-IS implant on day 1 followed by a terminal implant on day 85 presented larger (P < 0.05) LM areas (13.3 in2) than both the Rev-XS (12.7 in2) and TE-200 (12.8 in2) treatment groups. The  Rev-XS treatment group had a sig-nificantly greater (P < 0.05) marbling score (592) than the TE-IS/S treatment group (554). Marbling scores were not significantly different when compar-ing TE-200 (575) to either Rev-XS or TE-IS/S.In this trial, feed efficiency was improved when cattle were reim-planted rather than implanted at the beginning of the feeding period. Hormone concentration supplied should have been equivalent between Rev-XS and TE-IS/S treatments. Feedlot performance was not nega-tively impacted for cattle that were reimplanted in this study. However, treating with Rev-XS significantly improved marbling, compared to a reimplant program of TE-IS followed by TE-S. Interestingly, marbling was intermediate for cattle given TE-200 and not different from the other two treatments. It is not clear why differ-ences in feed efficiency or marbling were observed in this study. 1Cody A. Nichols, graduate student, Galen E. Erickson, associate professor, Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.; Judson T. Vasconcelos, assistant professor, Stephanie A. Furman, research manager, Panhandle Research and Extension Center; Justin J. Sindt, VetLife.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1574&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Evaluation of a New Single Implant Strategy vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Beef Finishing Steers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska