A commercial feedlot experiment was performed to compare the effects of a Component TE-IS/TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S) implant strategy to a Component TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200) or a Revalor XS (Rev-XS) single implant strategy on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. Cattle receiving the TE-IS/S implants and the Rev-XS implant had greater (P \u3c 0.05) final BW and lower F:G (P \u3c 0.05) than the cattle that received the TE-200 treatment. Daily gain was improved (P = 0.04) when comparing TE-IS/S to TE-200, but intermediate for steers that received the Rev-XS treatment. Quality grade categories were unaffected by implant strategy. Cattle given TE-IS/TE-S had a greater number (P \u3c 0.05) of yield grade 1 and 2 carcasses than other implant treatments, while cattle receiving TE-200 had greater (P \u3c 0.01) yield grade 3 and 5 carcasses

Botts, Robert L

Cooper, Robert J

Dicke, Bill D

Erickson, Galen E.

Jordon, D.J.

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Nichols, Cody A

Scott, Tony L

Sindt, Justin J

Vasconcelos, Judson T

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
2010 
Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in 
Finishing Steers 
Cody A. Nichols 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cody.nichols@huskers.unl.edu 
Galen E. Erickson 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu 
Judson T. Vasconcelos 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jvasconcelos2@unl.edu 
Justin J. Sindt 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Robert L. Botts 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
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.; Erickson, Galen E.; Vasconcelos, Judson T.; Sindt, Justin J.; Botts, Robert L.; Dicke, Bill D.; 
Jordon, D.J.; Cooper, Robert J.; Scott, Tony L.; and Klopfenstein, Terry J., "Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. 
Two Common Implant Strategies in Finishing Steers" (2010). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 574. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/574 
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, Galen E. Erickson, Judson T. Vasconcelos, Justin J. Sindt, Robert L. Botts, Bill D. Dicke, 
D.J. Jordon, Robert J. Cooper, Tony L. Scott, and Terry J. Klopfenstein 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
animalscinbcr/574 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 89 
Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common Implant
Strategies in Finishing Steers
Cody A. Nichols
Galen E. Erickson
Judson T. Vasconcelos
Justin J. Sindt
Robert L. Botts
Bill D. Dicke
D. J. Jordon
Robert J. Cooper
Tony L. Scott
Terry J. Klopfenstein1
Summary
A commercial feedlot experiment 
was performed to compare the effects of 
a Component TE-IS/TE-S with Tylan 
(TE-IS/S) implant strategy to a Com-
ponent TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200) or 
a Revalor XS (Rev-XS) single implant 
strategy on performance and carcass 
characteristics of feedlot steers. Cattle 
receiving the TE-IS/S implants and the 
Rev-XS implant had greater (P < 0.05) 
final BW and lower F:G (P < 0.05) 
than the cattle that received the TE-200 
treatment. Daily gain was improved 
(P = 0.04) when comparing TE-IS/S to 
TE-200, but intermediate for steers that 
received the Rev-XS treatment. Quality 
grade categories were unaffected by im-
plant strategy.  Cattle given TE-IS/TE-S 
had a greater number (P < 0.05) of 
yield grade 1 and 2 carcasses than other 
implant treatments, while cattle receiv-
ing TE-200 had greater (P < 0.01) yield 
grade 3 and 5 carcasses. 
Introduction
Revalor XS (Intervet/Shering-
Plough, Millsboro, Del.) is a new 
delayed release implant that contains 
40 mg estradiol and 200 mg trenbolone 
acetate. This implant consists of a total 
of 10 capsules, 6 of which are coated 
with a polymer that begins to break 
down at approximately 80 days post 
implant administration. The Revalor-
XS implant was developed to eliminate 
the need to reimplant cattle. Com-
ponent TE-200 with Tylan (VetLife, 
Overland Park, Kan.; 20 mg estradiol 
and 200 mg trenbolone acetate ) has a 
130-day pay-out period and is given 
once to feedlot steers during the feed-
ing period. A common reimplant 
program utilized by feedlots is Com-
ponent TE-IS with Tylan (VetLife; 16 
mg estradiol and 80 mg trenbolone 
acetate) given on day 1, with the ter-
minal implant Component TE-S with 
Tylan (VetLife; 24 mg estradiol and 120 
mg trenbolone acetate) administered 
80 days after the initial implant. There-
fore, the objective of this commercial 
study was to evaluate and compare 
both feedlot and carcass performance 
for steers on a common reimplant pro-
gram vs. single dose implant strategies.
Procedure
In the current study, Revalor-XS 
and Component TE-200 with Tylan 
were compared against a common 
reimplant program. A commercial 
feedlot experiment was conducted at 
Ward Feedyard in Larned, Kan. Year-
ling steers (n = 2,095; initial BW = 
760 ± 11 lb) from ranches and auction 
barns in Oklahoma, Missouri, Kan-
sas, and South Dakota were utilized 
for this trial. Steers were allocated to 
pens by sorting every 3 steers into 1 
of 3 pens prior to processing. Steers 
were weighed (pen basis) after sorting, 
but before processing for determina-
tion of initial BW. Pens were assigned 
randomly to 1 of 3 treatments (7 pens/
treatment). The treatments for this 
trial involved a reimplant and 2 single 
implant strategies: Component TE-IS 
with Tylan given on day 1 followed by 
Component TE-S with Tylan on day 
80 (placed in the opposite ear of the 
Component TE-IS implant; TE-IS/S); 
Component TE-200 with Tylan given 
on day 1 (TE-200):  and Revalor XS 
also administered on day 1 (Rev-XS). 
Implants were injected in the upper 
middle third of the ear under the skin. 
During initial processing, along with 
an implant cattle were given 1 dose of 
presponse pasteurella, 1 dose Pyra-
mid-5, 4cc Ivomec, and a visual iden-
tification tag. During reimplant time, 
cattle that received  the terminal im-
plant (Component TE-S with Tylan) 
were given a single dose of Titanium 
3 which aids in the prevention of dis-
ease caused by bovine rhinotracheitis 
virus and bovine virus diarrhea virus, 
Type I and Type II. Revaccinating cat-
tle at reimplant time is part of Ward’s 
normal standard operating procedure.
A step-up period in which incre-
mental percentages of steam-flaked 
corn replaced forage was used to 
acclimate cattle to the final finishing 
ration. The finishing ration consisted 
of 69% steam-flaked corn, 17% wet 
distillers grains with solubles, 5% 
liquid supplement, 3.5% mixed hay, 
3.5% mixed silage, and 2% fat. The 
supplement was formulated to provide 
320 mg/hd/day Rumensin (Elanco 
Animal Health; Greenfield, Ind.) and 
90 mg/hd/day Tylan (Elanco Animal 
Health). 
On day 1 after cattle were allocated 
to pens, individual lots were weighed 
on a pen scale, and individual weight 
was calculated by applying a 4% pen-
cil shrink to the pen weight. Live per-
formance was calculated from final 
BW shrunk 4% to account for gastro-
intestinal fill. Carcass performance 
was calculated using final BW based 
on HCW divided by a common dress-
ing percentage of 63.5%. Cattle were 
slaughtered at a commercial abbatoir 
(Tyson, Holcomb, Kan.) approximate-
ly 160 days after being placed on trial. 
On day 1 of slaughter, HCW mea-
surements were recorded and used to 
calculate both carcass performance 
and dressing percentage. After allow-
ing for a 48-hour carcass chill, both 
USDA quality and yield grades were 
recorded. 
Seven animals from the Rev-XS, 
6 animals from the TE-IS/S, and 
13 animals from TE-200 treatment 
groups died from non-treatment 
related illnesses during the course of 
Page 90 — 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.
Table 1.  Performance of yearling 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 80.
 TE-200 TE-IS/S Rev-XS SEM P-value
Feedlot performance1
Carcass2
Pens 7 7 7
Steers 684 693 692
Initial BW, lb 760 ab 766 a 753 b 4.29 0.02
Final BW, lb 1390a 1418 b 1413b 7.13 0.01
DMI, lb/d 22.5 22.7 22.4 0.27 0.67
ADG, lb/d 3.94 a 4.11 b 4.08 b 0.06 0.01
G:F 0.175 a 0.182 b 0.182 b 0.002 0.01
F:G3 5.71 a 5.50b 5.50 b  0.01
Live
Final BW, lb 1399 b 1419 a 1413 a 13.1 0.01
ADG, lb/d 3.98 b 4.10 a 4.06 ab 0.09 0.02
G:F 0.177 0.181 0.181 0.003 0.09
F:G3 5.66 5.52 5.54  0.09 
1Due to differences in initial body weight (P = 0.02), data were analyzed with initial BW as a covariant.
2Overall carcass performance calculated using 63.5% dressing percentage for all three treatments.
3P-value calculated from G:F.
abMeans with different superscript within column differ (P < 0.05).
Table 2.  Carcass characteristics of yearling 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 80.
 TE-200 TE-IS/S Rev-XS SEM P-value
Carcass characteristics1
HCW2 883 a 902 b 896 b 3.83 0.01
% Yield 63.1 a 63.4 b 63.7 b 0.33 0.001
USDA quality grade, as percentage of total3
Prime 0.15 0.29 0.87  0.10
Choice 62.1 57.9 59.5  0.27
Select 34.9 38.6 37.4  0.35
Standard 2.34 3.03 1.59  0.21
Dark 0.00 0.00 0.29  0.14
Blood 0.00 0.00 0.00  
Commercial 0.44 0.14 0.29  0.60
USDA yield grade, as percentage of total3
YG 1 7.16 11.96 8.96  0.01
YG 2 26.8 33.3 31.2  0.03
YG 3 52.3 43.1 48.4  0.003
YG 4 10.4 11.0 9.68  0.74
YG 5 3.36 0.72 1.73  0.002
1Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS.
2Hot carcass weight, lb.
3Data were compared using the χ2 option of the frequency procedure of SAS.
abMeans with different superscripts within column differ (P < 0.05).
this study. Three carcasses from the 
TE-200 treatment group and one car-
cass from the Rev-XS treatment group 
were condemned and removed from 
the study for reasons that were not 
related to implant treatment. 
Both feedlot and carcass data were 
analyzed using the PROC MIXED 
procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., 
Cary, N.C.) with pen as the experi-
mental unit. PROC FREQ of SAS was 
used for the Chi Square distribution 
analysis for both quality and yield 
grade distributions. 
Results
On the last day of the study, 
VetLife representatives examined ears 
that received implants for possible 
abscesses or missing implants that 
may have occurred during implant-
ing. 14.7% of the cattle that received 
a Revalor-XS implant presented an 
ear that was either abscessed or miss-
ing an implant.  Ears of cattle that 
received a Component TE-200 with 
Tylan or Component TE-IS with Tylan 
followed by a terminal Component 
TE-S with Tylan implant had 5.6 and 
1.4% abscesses or missing implants. 
The difference in abscesses and miss-
ing implants between the Revalor-XS 
treatment and the two Component 
implant treatments may be due to the 
fact that Tylan is added to the Compo-
nent implants to minimize infection. 
There were no differences in DMI 
when comparing the reimplant treat-
ment to the 2 single-dose implant 
treatments (P = 0.67; Table 1). For 
feedlot performance calculated on a 
carcass basis, final BW (P < 0.01), and 
F:G (P = 0.01) were significantly dif-
ferent among the 3 treatments. The 
cattle that received either the single 
Rev-XS or the Component TE-IS 
followed by a TE-S implant had sig-
nificantly larger final BW (P < 0.01) 
than the Component TE-200 cattle. In 
addition to final BW, cattle that were 
placed on the Rev-XS or the reimplant 
treatment expressed lower F:G than 
cattle that received TE-200 (P = 0.01). 
Cattle that were placed on the reim-
plant treatment or the Rev-XS treat-
ment had significantly greater  
(P < 0.05) ADG than cattle that were 
on the Component TE-200 treatment.  
Feedlot data calculated on a live basis 
produced results  similar to those data 
analyzed on a carcass basis. Final BW 
was significantly greater (P < 0.01) for 
both Rev-XS and TE-IS/S steers when 
compared to TE-200 treated cattle. 
Average daily gain was significantly  
(P = 0.02) improved for cattle that 
were placed on the reimplant treat-
ment compared to TE-200 cattle;  
Rev-XS steers were intermediate.
Carcass data are presented in  
Table 2.  Cattle that received the  
TE-200 implant had lighter (P < 0.01) 
HCW than both the Rev-XS and  
TE-IS/S treatments. Dressing per-
centage was significantly increased  
(P < 0.01) for both TE-IS/S and  
Rev-XS when compared to the TE-200 
(Continued on next page)
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 91 
treatment group. Cattle in the Rev-XS 
treatment tended to have a greater (P = 
0.10) number of carcasses grade Prime 
than cattle assigned to TE-200 and 
TE-IS/S treatments. The other USDA 
quality grade categories taken at the 
plant were not significantly impacted 
by implant regimen. Cattle implanted 
with Component TE-IS on day 1 then 
reimplanted with TE-S 80 days later 
had a greater (P < 0.05) number of car-
casses that graded USDA yield grade 1 
and 2 than the other 2 single implant 
treatments.  The TE-200 treatment had 
a greater (P < 0.01) number of yield 
grade 3 and 5 carcasses than both the 
TE-IS/S and Rev-XS treatments.
Summary
In conclusion, data from this study 
suggest feedlot and carcass perfor-
mance was relatively similar for cattle 
administered either a single Revalor 
XS implant or a combination of 2 im-
plants during the feeding period.  
1Cody A. Nichols, graduate student, 
Galen E. Erickson, associate professor, Judson 
T. Vasconcelos, assistant professor, Terry J. 
Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, 
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.; Bill D. 
Dicke, Robert J. Cooper, D. J. Jordon, Tony L. 
Scott, Cattlemens Nutrition Services; Justin J. 
Sindt, Robert L. Botts, VetLife.


Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Finishing Steers

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 2010 Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Finishing Steers Cody A. Nichols University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cody.nichols@huskers.unl.edu Galen E. Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu Judson T. Vasconcelos University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jvasconcelos2@unl.edu Justin J. Sindt University of Nebraska-Lincoln Robert L. Botts University of Nebraska-Lincoln 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.; Erickson, Galen E.; Vasconcelos, Judson T.; Sindt, Justin J.; Botts, Robert L.; Dicke, Bill D.; Jordon, D.J.; Cooper, Robert J.; Scott, Tony L.; and Klopfenstein, Terry J., "Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Finishing Steers" (2010). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 574. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/574 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, Galen E. Erickson, Judson T. Vasconcelos, Justin J. Sindt, Robert L. Botts, Bill D. Dicke, D.J. Jordon, Robert J. Cooper, Tony L. Scott, and Terry J. Klopfenstein This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/574 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 89 Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common ImplantStrategies in Finishing SteersCody A. NicholsGalen E. EricksonJudson T. VasconcelosJustin J. SindtRobert L. BottsBill D. DickeD. J. JordonRobert J. CooperTony L. ScottTerry J. Klopfenstein1SummaryA commercial feedlot experiment was performed to compare the effects of a Component TE-IS/TE-S with Tylan (TE-IS/S) implant strategy to a Com-ponent TE-200 with Tylan (TE-200) or a Revalor XS (Rev-XS) single implant strategy on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. Cattle receiving the TE-IS/S implants and the Rev-XS implant had greater (P < 0.05) final BW and lower F:G (P < 0.05) than the cattle that received the TE-200 treatment. Daily gain was improved (P = 0.04) when comparing TE-IS/S to TE-200, but intermediate for steers that received the Rev-XS treatment. Quality grade categories were unaffected by im-plant strategy.  Cattle given TE-IS/TE-S had a greater number (P < 0.05) of yield grade 1 and 2 carcasses than other implant treatments, while cattle receiv-ing TE-200 had greater (P < 0.01) yield grade 3 and 5 carcasses. IntroductionRevalor XS (Intervet/Shering-Plough, Millsboro, Del.) is a new delayed release implant that contains 40 mg estradiol and 200 mg trenbolone acetate. This implant consists of a total of 10 capsules, 6 of which are coated with a polymer that begins to break down at approximately 80 days post implant administration. The Revalor-XS implant was developed to eliminate the need to reimplant cattle. Com-ponent TE-200 with Tylan (VetLife, Overland Park, Kan.; 20 mg estradiol and 200 mg trenbolone acetate ) has a 130-day pay-out period and is given once to feedlot steers during the feed-ing period. A common reimplant program utilized by feedlots is Com-ponent TE-IS with Tylan (VetLife; 16 mg estradiol and 80 mg trenbolone acetate) given on day 1, with the ter-minal implant Component TE-S with Tylan (VetLife; 24 mg estradiol and 120 mg trenbolone acetate) administered 80 days after the initial implant. There-fore, the objective of this commercial study was to evaluate and compare both feedlot and carcass performance for steers on a common reimplant pro-gram vs. single dose implant strategies.ProcedureIn the current study, Revalor-XS and Component TE-200 with Tylan were compared against a common reimplant program. A commercial feedlot experiment was conducted at Ward Feedyard in Larned, Kan. Year-ling steers (n = 2,095; initial BW = 760 ± 11 lb) from ranches and auction barns in Oklahoma, Missouri, Kan-sas, and South Dakota were utilized for this trial. Steers were allocated to pens by sorting every 3 steers into 1 of 3 pens prior to processing. Steers were weighed (pen basis) after sorting, but before processing for determina-tion of initial BW. Pens were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 treatments (7 pens/treatment). The treatments for this trial involved a reimplant and 2 single implant strategies: Component TE-IS with Tylan given on day 1 followed by Component TE-S with Tylan on day 80 (placed in the opposite ear of the Component TE-IS implant; TE-IS/S); Component TE-200 with Tylan given on day 1 (TE-200):  and Revalor XS also administered on day 1 (Rev-XS). Implants were injected in the upper middle third of the ear under the skin. During initial processing, along with an implant cattle were given 1 dose of presponse pasteurella, 1 dose Pyra-mid-5, 4cc Ivomec, and a visual iden-tification tag. During reimplant time, cattle that received  the terminal im-plant (Component TE-S with Tylan) were given a single dose of Titanium 3 which aids in the prevention of dis-ease caused by bovine rhinotracheitis virus and bovine virus diarrhea virus, Type I and Type II. Revaccinating cat-tle at reimplant time is part of Ward’s normal standard operating procedure.A step-up period in which incre-mental percentages of steam-flaked corn replaced forage was used to acclimate cattle to the final finishing ration. The finishing ration consisted of 69% steam-flaked corn, 17% wet distillers grains with solubles, 5% liquid supplement, 3.5% mixed hay, 3.5% mixed silage, and 2% fat. The supplement was formulated to provide 320 mg/hd/day Rumensin (Elanco Animal Health; Greenfield, Ind.) and 90 mg/hd/day Tylan (Elanco Animal Health). On day 1 after cattle were allocated to pens, individual lots were weighed on a pen scale, and individual weight was calculated by applying a 4% pen-cil shrink to the pen weight. Live per-formance was calculated from final BW shrunk 4% to account for gastro-intestinal fill. Carcass performance was calculated using final BW based on HCW divided by a common dress-ing percentage of 63.5%. Cattle were slaughtered at a commercial abbatoir (Tyson, Holcomb, Kan.) approximate-ly 160 days after being placed on trial. On day 1 of slaughter, HCW mea-surements were recorded and used to calculate both carcass performance and dressing percentage. After allow-ing for a 48-hour carcass chill, both USDA quality and yield grades were recorded. Seven animals from the Rev-XS, 6 animals from the TE-IS/S, and 13 animals from TE-200 treatment groups died from non-treatment related illnesses during the course of Page 90 — 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.Table 1.  Performance of yearling 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 80. TE-200 TE-IS/S Rev-XS SEM P-valueFeedlot performance1Carcass2Pens 7 7 7Steers 684 693 692Initial BW, lb 760 ab 766 a 753 b 4.29 0.02Final BW, lb 1390a 1418 b 1413b 7.13 0.01DMI, lb/d 22.5 22.7 22.4 0.27 0.67ADG, lb/d 3.94 a 4.11 b 4.08 b 0.06 0.01G:F 0.175 a 0.182 b 0.182 b 0.002 0.01F:G3 5.71 a 5.50b 5.50 b  0.01LiveFinal BW, lb 1399 b 1419 a 1413 a 13.1 0.01ADG, lb/d 3.98 b 4.10 a 4.06 ab 0.09 0.02G:F 0.177 0.181 0.181 0.003 0.09F:G3 5.66 5.52 5.54  0.09 1Due to differences in initial body weight (P = 0.02), data were analyzed with initial BW as a covariant.2Overall carcass performance calculated using 63.5% dressing percentage for all three treatments.3P-value calculated from G:F.abMeans with different superscript within column differ (P < 0.05).Table 2.  Carcass characteristics of yearling 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 80. TE-200 TE-IS/S Rev-XS SEM P-valueCarcass characteristics1HCW2 883 a 902 b 896 b 3.83 0.01% Yield 63.1 a 63.4 b 63.7 b 0.33 0.001USDA quality grade, as percentage of total3Prime 0.15 0.29 0.87  0.10Choice 62.1 57.9 59.5  0.27Select 34.9 38.6 37.4  0.35Standard 2.34 3.03 1.59  0.21Dark 0.00 0.00 0.29  0.14Blood 0.00 0.00 0.00  Commercial 0.44 0.14 0.29  0.60USDA yield grade, as percentage of total3YG 1 7.16 11.96 8.96  0.01YG 2 26.8 33.3 31.2  0.03YG 3 52.3 43.1 48.4  0.003YG 4 10.4 11.0 9.68  0.74YG 5 3.36 0.72 1.73  0.0021Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS.2Hot carcass weight, lb.3Data were compared using the χ2 option of the frequency procedure of SAS.abMeans with different superscripts within column differ (P < 0.05).this study. Three carcasses from the TE-200 treatment group and one car-cass from the Rev-XS treatment group were condemned and removed from the study for reasons that were not related to implant treatment. Both feedlot and carcass data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C.) with pen as the experi-mental unit. PROC FREQ of SAS was used for the Chi Square distribution analysis for both quality and yield grade distributions. ResultsOn the last day of the study, VetLife representatives examined ears that received implants for possible abscesses or missing implants that may have occurred during implant-ing. 14.7% of the cattle that received a Revalor-XS implant presented an ear that was either abscessed or miss-ing an implant.  Ears of cattle that received a Component TE-200 with Tylan or Component TE-IS with Tylan followed by a terminal Component TE-S with Tylan implant had 5.6 and 1.4% abscesses or missing implants. The difference in abscesses and miss-ing implants between the Revalor-XS treatment and the two Component implant treatments may be due to the fact that Tylan is added to the Compo-nent implants to minimize infection. There were no differences in DMI when comparing the reimplant treat-ment to the 2 single-dose implant treatments (P = 0.67; Table 1). For feedlot performance calculated on a carcass basis, final BW (P < 0.01), and F:G (P = 0.01) were significantly dif-ferent among the 3 treatments. The cattle that received either the single Rev-XS or the Component TE-IS followed by a TE-S implant had sig-nificantly larger final BW (P < 0.01) than the Component TE-200 cattle. In addition to final BW, cattle that were placed on the Rev-XS or the reimplant treatment expressed lower F:G than cattle that received TE-200 (P = 0.01). Cattle that were placed on the reim-plant treatment or the Rev-XS treat-ment had significantly greater  (P < 0.05) ADG than cattle that were on the Component TE-200 treatment.  Feedlot data calculated on a live basis produced results  similar to those data analyzed on a carcass basis. Final BW was significantly greater (P < 0.01) for both Rev-XS and TE-IS/S steers when compared to TE-200 treated cattle. Average daily gain was significantly  (P = 0.02) improved for cattle that were placed on the reimplant treat-ment compared to TE-200 cattle;  Rev-XS steers were intermediate.Carcass data are presented in  Table 2.  Cattle that received the  TE-200 implant had lighter (P < 0.01) HCW than both the Rev-XS and  TE-IS/S treatments. Dressing per-centage was significantly increased  (P < 0.01) for both TE-IS/S and  Rev-XS when compared to the TE-200 (Continued on next page)© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2010 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 91 treatment group. Cattle in the Rev-XS treatment tended to have a greater (P = 0.10) number of carcasses grade Prime than cattle assigned to TE-200 and TE-IS/S treatments. The other USDA quality grade categories taken at the plant were not significantly impacted by implant regimen. Cattle implanted with Component TE-IS on day 1 then reimplanted with TE-S 80 days later had a greater (P < 0.05) number of car-casses that graded USDA yield grade 1 and 2 than the other 2 single implant treatments.  The TE-200 treatment had a greater (P < 0.01) number of yield grade 3 and 5 carcasses than both the TE-IS/S and Rev-XS treatments.SummaryIn conclusion, data from this study suggest feedlot and carcass perfor-mance was relatively similar for cattle administered either a single Revalor XS implant or a combination of 2 im-plants during the feeding period.  1Cody A. Nichols, graduate student, Galen E. Erickson, associate professor, Judson T. Vasconcelos, assistant professor, Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.; Bill D. Dicke, Robert J. Cooper, D. J. Jordon, Tony L. Scott, Cattlemens Nutrition Services; Justin J. Sindt, Robert L. Botts, VetLife.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Comparison of Revalor-XS vs. Two Common Implant Strategies in Finishing Steers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska