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

Authors

• Cody A. Nichols, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
• Judson Vasconcelos, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
• Galen E. Erickson, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
• Stephanie A. Furman, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
• Justin J. Sindt, Elanco Animal Health
• Terry J. Klopfenstein, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow

Date of this Version

2010

Comments

Published in 2009 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report (Lincoln, NE: December, 2008). Copyright © 2008 The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.

Abstract

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 > 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 reimplantedcattle compared to those on the TE-200 treatment; F:G for the Rev-XSwas intermediate. No differences (P > 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 < 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.