ABSTRACT
Objective
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
Conclusions and Applications
Key words
INTRODUCTION
- Smith Z.K.
- Holland B.P.
- Word A.B.
- Crawford G.I.
- Nichols W.N.
- Nuttelman B.L.
- Streeter M.N.
- Hutcheson J.P.
- Johnson B.J.
- Hilscher Jr., F.H.
- Streeter M.N.
- Vander Pol K.J.
- Dicke B.D.
- Cooper R.J.
- Jordon D.J.
- Scott T.L.
- Vogstad A.R.
- Peterson R.E.
- Depenbusch B.E.
- Erickson G.E.
- Smith Z.K.
- Thompson A.J.
- Hutcheson J.P.
- Nichols W.T.
- Johnson B.J.
- Hilscher Jr., F.H.
- Streeter M.N.
- Vander Pol K.J.
- Dicke B.D.
- Cooper R.J.
- Jordon D.J.
- Scott T.L.
- Vogstad A.R.
- Peterson R.E.
- Depenbusch B.E.
- Erickson G.E.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Exp. 1: DOF by TW
Animals, Blocking, and Study Design.
Treatments.
BW, Feed Delivery, and Carcass Measurements.
Statistical Analysis.
Exp. 2: Implant Program Dose by TW
Animals, Blocking, and Study Design.
Treatments.
BW, Feed Delivery, and Carcass Measurements.
Statistical Analysis.
Exp. 3: Observational Study
Data Set Creation.
Treatments.
TW Calculation for XS.
Statistical Analysis.
wherea = intercept;b = prebreak slope;c = model break point; andd = postbreak slope.
RESULTS
Exp. 1
Live Performance.
Item | DOF | Terminal window (TW) | SEM | P-value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 162 | 183 | 60 | 100 | DOF | TW | DOF × TW | |||
Pens, no. | 16 | 16 | 16 | 24 | 24 | — | — | — | — | |
Days on feed | 139a | 162b | 183c | 161 | 161 | 0.95 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
Initial BW, kg | 343 | 343 | 344 | 344 | 344 | 1.50 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.39 | |
Final BW, kg | 543a | 569b | 601c | 573 | 569 | 4.10 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.73 | |
Total gain, kg | 199a | 226b | 256c | 229 | 225 | 3.64 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.29 | |
ADG, kg/d | 1.44b | 1.40a | 1.40ab | 1.42 | 1.40 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.29 | |
DMI, kg/d | 9.33 | 9.43 | 9.53 | 9.45 | 9.41 | 0.14 | 0.94 | 0.15 | 0.27 | |
F:G | 6.50 | 6.77 | 6.81 | 6.65 | 6.73 | 0.09 | 0.30 | 0.98 | 0.39 | |
G:F | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.002 | 0.30 | 0.98 | 0.39 |
Carcass Performance.
Item | DOF | Terminal window (TW) | SEM | P-value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 162 | 183 | 60 | 100 | DOF | TW | DOF × TW | |||
Carcass metrics | ||||||||||
HCW, kg | 342a | 366b | 388c | 367 | 364 | 2.81 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.86 | |
DP, % | 63.1 | 64.3 | 64.7 | 64.1 | 64 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.49 | 0.61 | |
LM area, cm | 89.7 | 91.0 | 93.5 | 91.0 | 91.6 | 1.06 | 0.31 | 0.83 | 0.79 | |
Marbling score | 456b | 494a | 502a | 483 | 479 | 9.35 | 0.01 | 0.70 | 0.56 | |
Fat thickness, cm | 1.37b | 1.60a | 1.83a | 1.60 | 1.57 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.65 | 0.81 | |
EBF, % | 30.0a | 30.7b | 32.1c | 30.6 | 30.3 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.54 | 0.65 | |
QG | ||||||||||
Prime, % | 1.46b | 3.34a | 3.70a | 2.84 | 2.43 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.80 | 0.03 | |
Choice, % | 73.3b | 78.2a | 79.8a | 78.6 | 75.8 | 1.92 | 0.02 | 0.46 | 0.56 | |
Select, % | 23.5a | 16.9b | 13.5c | 15.7 | 19.6 | 1.86 | 0.01 | 0.26 | 0.66 | |
YG | ||||||||||
YG 1, % | 20.5a | 12.2b | 7.42c | 10.9 | 14.3 | 1.79 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.69 | |
YG 2, % | 47.3a | 36.0b | 30.9c | 37.8 | 37.8 | 2.14 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.26 | |
YG 3, % | 27.7b | 38.6a | 39.1a | 35.5 | 34.3 | 2.12 | 0.01 | 0.61 | 0.49 | |
YG 4, % | 3.64a | 10.6b | 18.2c | 9.75 | 8.43 | 1.72 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.99 | |
YG 5, % | 0.24a | 1.66b | 3.12c | 1.04 | 1.16 | 0.59 | 0.01 | 0.57 | 0.59 |
Exp. 2
Live Performance.
Item | Implant program | Terminal window (TW) | SEM | P-value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IH/H | IH/200 | 200/200 | 60 | 100 | Dose | TW | Dose × TW | |||
Pens, no. | 18 | 18 | 18 | 27 | 27 | — | — | — | — | |
Days on feed | 171 | 171 | 171 | 171 | 171 | — | — | — | — | |
Initial BW, kg | 308 | 309 | 308 | 309 | 309 | 5.55 | 0.59 | 0.98 | 0.14 | |
Final BW, kg | 568 | 570 | 574 | 570 | 572 | 4.99 | 0.14 | 0.30 | 0.79 | |
Total gain, kg | 261a | 262ab | 266b | 262 | 264 | 4.10 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.79 | |
ADG, kg/d | 1.52a | 1.53ab | 1.56b | 1.53 | 1.54 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.81 | |
DMI, kg/d | 9.03a | 8.87b | 9.01ab | 8.94 | 9.00 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.39 | 0.49 | |
F:G | 5.94b | 5.78a | 5.78a | 5.84 | 5.84 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.76 | 0.53 | |
G:F | 0.16b | 0.17a | 0.17a | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.73 | 0.53 |
Carcass Performance.
Item | Implant program | Terminal window (TW) | SEM | P-value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IH/H | IH/200 | 200/200 | 60 | 100 | Dose | TW | Dose × TW | |||
Carcass metrics | ||||||||||
HCW, kg | 361a | 363ab | 366b | 363 | 364 | 3.55 | 0.02 | 0.41 | 0.64 | |
DP, % | 63.5a | 63.6ab | 63.8b | 63.7 | 63.6 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.73 | 0.06 | |
LM area, cm | 88.7a | 89.3a | 91.4b | 89.5 | 90.1 | 0.52 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.82 | |
Marbling score | 489a | 479ab | 461b | 480 | 472 | 6.34 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.90 | |
Fat thickness, cm | 1.66a | 1.64ab | 1.59b | 1.63 | 1.63 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.82 | 1.00 | |
EBF, % | 30.9a | 30.7a | 30.3b | 30.7 | 30.6 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.82 | 0.97 | |
QG | ||||||||||
Prime, % | 4.63a | 3.86a | 1.36b | 2.90 | 2.91 | 0.75 | 0.02 | 0.37 | 0.66 | |
Choice, % | 72.4a | 70.8ab | 67.2b | 71.4 | 68.9 | 2.45 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.62 | |
Select, % | 21.8a | 23.9a | 29.9b | 26.1 | 24.0 | 2.49 | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.89 | |
YG | ||||||||||
YG 1, % | 7.42a | 7.38a | 9.67b | 7.79 | 8.41 | 1.19 | 0.02 | 0.73 | 0.08 | |
YG 2, % | 35.2 | 36.1 | 40.3 | 35.7 | 38.6 | 1.67 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.07 | |
YG 3, % | 41.6 | 42.1 | 39.6 | 43.1 | 39.2 | 1.44 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.94 | |
YG 4, % | 13.5a | 12.0a | 8.14b | 10.9 | 11.1 | 1.31 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.06 | |
YG 5, % | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.75 | 1.25 | 0.35 | 0.93 | 0.21 | 0.85 |
Exp. 3: Observational Study
Time-Series Implant Program Comparisons.


Time-Series and Broken-Slope TW Comparisons.

Trait and model component | Implant program | ||
---|---|---|---|
200/200 | IS/200 | XS | |
ADG | |||
Intercept | 1.82 | 1.61 | 1.88 |
Prebreak slope | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.003 |
Break point | 69.3 | 67.4 | 70.0 |
Postbreak slope | −0.005 | −0.004 | −0.003 |
F:G | |||
Intercept | 5.57 | 6.07 | 6.22 |
Prebreak slope | 0.007 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Break point | 53.5 | 73.5 | 75.0 |
Postbreak slope | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
DMI | |||
Intercept | 9.95 | 9.87 | 11.62 |
Prebreak slope | 0.009 | 0.004 | −0.017 |
Break point | 63.7 | 65.5 | 73.0 |
Postbreak slope | −0.014 | −0.004 | −0.009 |



Trait and model component | Implant program | |
---|---|---|
200/200 | IH/200 | |
ADG | ||
Intercept | 1.57 | 1.48 |
Prebreak slope | −0.0004 | 0.0002 |
Break point | 59.7 | 69.0 |
Postbreak slope | −0.004 | −0.003 |
F:G | ||
Intercept | 6.30 | 6.61 |
Prebreak slope | 0.001 | −0.002 |
Break point | 58.4 | 67.0 |
Postbreak slope | 0.008 | 0.008 |
DMI | ||
Intercept | 9.64 | 9.74 |
Prebreak slope | −0.0002 | −0.0032 |
Break point | 60.9 | 79.8 |
Postbreak slope | −0.008 | −0.006 |


DISCUSSION
DOF
- Depenbusch B.E.
- Corrigan M.E.
- Crawford G.I.
- Hutcheson J.P.
- Nichols W.T.
- Nuttelman B.L.
- Streeter M.N.
- Jennings M.A.
- Ribeiro F.R.B.
- Young T.R.
- Cribbs J.T.
- Bernhard B.C.
- Hosford A.D.
- Harris T.L.
- Anderson M.J.
- Vogel G.J.
- Scanga J.A.
- Miller M.F.
- Johnson B.J.
Implant Program Dose
- Smith Z.K.
- Holland B.P.
- Word A.B.
- Crawford G.I.
- Nichols W.N.
- Nuttelman B.L.
- Streeter M.N.
- Hutcheson J.P.
- Johnson B.J.
- Hilscher Jr., F.H.
- Streeter M.N.
- Vander Pol K.J.
- Dicke B.D.
- Cooper R.J.
- Jordon D.J.
- Scott T.L.
- Vogstad A.R.
- Peterson R.E.
- Depenbusch B.E.
- Erickson G.E.
- Hilscher Jr., F.H.
- Streeter M.N.
- Vander Pol K.J.
- Dicke B.D.
- Cooper R.J.
- Jordon D.J.
- Scott T.L.
- Vogstad A.R.
- Peterson R.E.
- Depenbusch B.E.
- Erickson G.E.
TW Analysis
- Jennings M.A.
- Ribeiro F.R.B.
- Young T.R.
- Cribbs J.T.
- Bernhard B.C.
- Hosford A.D.
- Harris T.L.
- Anderson M.J.
- Vogel G.J.
- Scanga J.A.
- Miller M.F.
- Johnson B.J.
- Smith Z.K.
- Holland B.P.
- Word A.B.
- Crawford G.I.
- Nichols W.N.
- Nuttelman B.L.
- Streeter M.N.
- Hutcheson J.P.
- Johnson B.J.
- Depenbusch B.E.
- Corrigan M.E.
- Crawford G.I.
- Hutcheson J.P.
- Nichols W.T.
- Nuttelman B.L.
- Streeter M.N.
APPLICATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LITERATURE CITED
APHIS. 2013. The Use of Growth-Promoting Implants in U.S. Feedlots. USDA-APHIS Report. USDA Anim. Plant Health Insp. Serv.
- Effects of time of administration of an implant containing 200 mg trenbolone acetate and 20 mg estradiol in finishing heifers given 80 mg of trenbolone acetate and 8 mg estradiol at initial processing and fed for 181 days..https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky073.452J. Anim. Sci. 2018; 96: 244
Duckett, S. K., F. N. Owens, and J. G. Andrae. 1997. Effects of implants on performance and carcass traits of feedlot steers and heifers. Pages 63–82 in Oklahoma State Univ. Implant Symp. Proc. Oklahoma State Univ.
FASS. 2020. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching. 4th rev. ed. FASS Inc.
Galyean, M. L., S. C. Harris, H. M. Derington, P. J. Defoor, G. A. Nunnery, and G. B. Salyer. 1999. Effects of Various Implant Programs on Performance and Carcass Merit of Finishing Heifers. Burnett Center Progress Report No. 4. Texas Tech Univ.
Griffin, D. D., and T. L. Mader. 1997. G97-1324 Beef Cattle Implant Update. 304. Historical materials from Univ. Nebraska–Lincoln Ext.
- The effects of implant strategy on finished body weight of beef cattle..https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8071791x12162646J. Anim. Sci. 2002; 80: 1791-1800
- Effect of increasing initial implant dosage on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of long-fed steer and heifer calves..https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2015-01389Prof. Anim. Sci. 2016; 32: 53-62
- Ractopamine hydrochloride and estradiol-trenbolone acetate implants alter live performance and carcass components of heifers during the finishing phase..https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2014-01370Prof. Anim. Sci. 2015; 31: 543-551
- Optimizing carcass value and the use of anabolic implants in beef cattle..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2001.79E-SupplE296xJ. Anim. Sci. 2001; 79: E296-E306
Ohnoutka, C. A., B. M. Boyd, F. H. Hilscher, B. L. Nuttelman, G. I. Crawford, J. C. MacDonald, and G. E. Erickson. 2019. Evaluation of Reimplant Window with Revalor-200® on Steer Performance and Carcass Characteristics. Nebraska Beef Cattle Rep. Univ. Nebraska–Lincoln.
- Dose and release pattern of anabolic implants affects growth of finishing beef steers across days on feed..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-344721097688J. Anim. Sci. 2011; 89: 863-873
- High-dose anabolic implants are not all the same for growth and carcass traits of feedlot steers: A meta-analysis..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-757225149344J. Anim. Sci. 2014; 92: 4711-4718
- Effects of heifer finishing implants on beef carcass traits and longissimus tenderness..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-000417431051J. Anim. Sci. 2007; 85: 2019-2030
- Response to ractopamine-HCl in heifers is altered by implant strategy across days on feed..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-66017504961J. Anim. Sci. 2007; 85: 2125-2132
- Effects of a single initial and delayed release implant on arrival compared with a non-coated initial implant and a non-coated terminal implant in heifers fed across various days on feed..https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz12732704882Transl. Anim. Sci. 2019; 3: 1182-1193
- Evaluation of coated steroidal implants containing trenbolone acetate and estradiol-17β on live performance, carcass traits, and sera metabolites in finishing steers..https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky09529534183J. Anim. Sci. 2018; 96: 1704-1723
USDA. 1997. United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef. USDA, Agric. Market. Serv.
- Effect of time on feed on performance of feedlot steers, carcass characteristics, and tenderness and composition of longissimus muscles..https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73121x7601736J. Anim. Sci. 1995; 73: 21-28
- Response to ractopamine-hydrogen chloride is similar in yearling steers across days on feed..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-55517235026J. Anim. Sci. 2007; 85: 413-419
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
Five of the authors were employed by Elanco Animal Health, who provided funding for this work, and held stock in the company at the time this research was conducted. The other 2 authors have not declared any conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy