Time filter

Source Type

Lincoln, NE, United States

Hilscher F.H.,University of Nebraska - Lincoln | Streeter M.N.,Merck Animal Health | Vander Pol K.J.,Merck Animal Health | Vander Pol K.J.,Adams Land and Cattle Company | And 8 more authors.
Professional Animal Scientist | Year: 2016

Three experiments evaluated initial implant strategies for finishing cattle. In Exp. 1, heifers (n. =. 1,405; initial BW. =. 282 kg) were given (1) Revalor-IH followed by Revalor-200 (REV-IH/200), (2) Revalor-H followed by Revalor-200 (REV-H/200), or (3) Revalor-200 followed by Revalor-200 (REV-200/200). Intake, ADG, and G:F were not affected (P. >. 0.14) by implant strategies, nor were HCW and LM area (P. >. 0.16). Percent USDA Choice was greater (P. <. 0.01) for Rev-IH/200 compared with Rev-H/200 and Rev-200/200. Experiment 2 used steers (n. =. 1,858; initial BW. =. 250 kg) given (1) Revalor-IS reimplanted with Revalor-200 (RevIS/200), (2) Revalor-XS followed by Revalor-IS (Rev-XS/IS), (3) Revalor-XS followed by Revalor-S (Rev-XS/S), or (4) Revalor-XS followed by Revalor-200 (Rev-XS/200). Implanting strategies did not affect (P. >. 0.32) DMI or G:F. Carcass traits were not different (P. >. 0.18) among treatments, except steers implanted with Rev-XS/200 had greater (P. <. 0.01) LM area. In Exp. 3, steers (n. =. 1,408; initial BW. =. 305 kg) were given (1) Rev-IS/200, (2) Rev-200/200, or (3) Rev-XS/200. Gain and G:F did not differ (P. >. 0.36) among the 3 implant strategies, nor did HCW or marbling score (P. >. 0.15). Steers given Rev-XS/200 had greater (P. <. 0.01) LM area and decreased (P. <. 0.05) 12th-rib fat and YG compared with Rev-200/200 and Rev-IS/200. Using Rev-200/200 and Rev-XS/200 increased (P. =. 0.03) USDA Select compared with Rev-IS/200. Using greater-initial-dose implant strategies may not affect ADG or G:F but appears to increase leanness. © 2016 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists.

Discover hidden collaborations