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

Authors

Cody A. Nichols, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Galen E. Erickson, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Judson T. Vasconcelos, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Justin J. Sindt, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Robert L. Botts, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Bill D. Dicke, Cattleman’s Consulting Service, Inc., Lincoln, NE
D.J. Jordon, Cattlemens Nutrition Services
Robert J. Cooper, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Tony L. Scott, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
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 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 < 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 implant 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 receiving TE-200 had greater (P < 0.01) yield grade 3 and 5 carcasses.