A feedlot study evaluated the effects of 4 implant strategies (Revalor-XR on day 1, Revalor-XH on day 1, Revalor-200 on day 1, and Revalor-200 on day 70) on growth performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot heifers compared to non-implanted heifers fed 198 days. Intake was not impacted by treatments. Implanted cattle had greater carcass-adjusted ADG and lower F:G compared to cattle that received no implant. Implanted treatments had significantly greater HCW, dressing percentages, and lower marbling scores compared to non-implanted cattle. Heifers implanted with Revalor-XR, Revalor-XH, and Revalor-200 on day 70 had larger LM area resulting in lower calculated yield grades compared to Revalor-200 administered on day 1 and control cattle. The response in gain, feed efficiency, and yield grade suggest that Revalor-XR, Revalor-XH, and Revalor-200 implanted on day 70 respond similarly when heifers are fed to similar days

Boyd, Bradley M.

Crawford, Grant I.

Erickson, Galen E.

Hilscher, F. Henry, Hilscher

Nuttleman, Brandon L.

Ohnoutka, Caitlin A.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnNebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department2018Effect of Revalor-XR and Revalor-XH on HeiferPerformance and Carcass CharacteristicsCaitlin A. OhnoutkaUniversity of Nebraska - LincolnBradley M. BoydUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, bboyd4@unl.eduF. Henry Hilscher HilscherUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, henry.hilscher@unl.eduGrant I. CrawfordMerck Animal HealthBrandon L. NuttlemanUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcrPart of the Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Commons, Meat Science Commons, andthe Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Ohnoutka, Caitlin A.; Boyd, Bradley M.; Hilscher, F. Henry Hilscher; Crawford, Grant I.; Nuttleman, Brandon L.; and Erickson,Galen E., "Effect of Revalor-XR and Revalor-XH on Heifer Performance and Carcass Characteristics" (2018). Nebraska Beef CattleReports. 969.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/969AuthorsCaitlin A. Ohnoutka, Bradley M. Boyd, F. Henry Hilscher Hilscher, Grant I. Crawford, Brandon L.Nuttleman, and Galen E. EricksonThis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/969116 · 2018 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report©  The Board Regents of the University of  Nebraska. All rights reserved.the amount of dry rolled corn and high moisture corn were gradually increased replacing alfalfa hay. The finishing diet was identical across treatments and contained 32.3% dry rolled corn, 16.2% high moisture corn, 15.0% WDGS, 25% Sweet Bran (Car-gill), 7.5% grass hay, and 4% supplement.Individual BW were collected on days 0, 1, 35, 70, 105, 140, and 175. On day 70, heifers assigned to Revalor- 200 on day 70 were implanted. Heifers were harvested at 194 days (Block 1) and 201 days (Block 2) at a commercial harvest facility (Greater Omaha Packing Co., Omaha, NE). Final live BW was determined at shipping using the average pen weight shrunk by 4% to ad-just for fill. Carcass- adjusted performance was calculated from HCW divided by a common dressing percent of 63%. On day 1 of harvest, both liver scores and HCW were recorded and after a 48- hour chill, 12th rib fat thickness, LM area, and USDA mar-bling score were recorded. Yield grade was calculated based on 12th rib fat thickness, LM area, HCW, and a constant KPH (3%). Both performance and carcass data were analyzed the MIXED procedure of SAS. The model included treatment and block as fixed effects and the experimental unit was pen. Treatment means were separated using LSD test when the F- Test was significant. In addition, quality and yield grade distribu-tion were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS using a multinomial distribution approach. Alpha values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant.ResultsHeifers were checked for missing or ab-scessed implants on days 35 and 105 and if found, were removed from trial. There were two heifers removed for missing implants on day 35 (one from each block) and one heifer removed on day 105 (Block 1) for missing implant. No abscessed implants were observed.Overall, there were no differences in DMI (P=0.22) between all treatments over Caitlin A. OhnoutkaBradley M. BoydF. Henry HilscherGrant I. CrawfordBrandon L. NuttelmanGalen E. EricksonSummary with ImplicationsA feedlot study evaluated the effects of 4 implant strategies (Revalor- XR on day 1, Revalor- XH on day 1, Revalor- 200 on day 1, and Revalor- 200 on day 70) on growth performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot heifers compared to non- implanted heifers fed 198 days. Intake was not impacted by treatments. Implanted cattle had greater carcass- adjusted ADG and lower F:G com-pared to cattle that received no implant. Implanted treatments had significantly great-er HCW, dressing percentages, and lower marbling scores compared to non- implanted cattle. Heifers implanted with Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, and Revalor- 200 on day 70 had larger LM area resulting in lower calculat-ed yield grades compared to Revalor- 200 administered on day 1 and control cattle. The response in gain, feed efficiency, and yield grade suggest that Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, and Revalor- 200 implanted on day 70 respond similarly when heifers are fed to similar days.IntroductionImplanting cattle has been shown to improve growth performance and result in leaner carcass composition when fed to similar days on feed. Recent signals in the industry have encouraged larger carcasses. Therefore, the increase in price received for the added weight may compensate for the negative impacts of reduced marbling observed with aggressive implant strate-gies. Implant strategies have become more performance- based by increasing the Effect of Revalor- XR and Revalor- XH  on Heifer Performance and Carcass Characteristicsamount of trenbolone acetate and estradiol initially and prolonging its release (Revalor- XH), or by giving a long- lasting, delayed- release implant (Revalor- XR) that extends the payout of the implant. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effects of a new long- lasting, delayed- release implant, Revalor- XR, compared to a long- lasting implant, Revalor- XH, on growth performance and carcass character-istics compared to traditional and delayed implant strategies (Revalor- 200 on day 1 or day 70) and non- implanted feedlot heifers.ProcedureA feedlot study was conducted at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln Eastern Nebraska Research and Extension Cen-ter (ENREC) near Mead, NE. Crossbred yearling heifers (n=500; initial BW =617 lb.) were utilized in a completely random-ized block design (2 BW blocks) with five treatments. Pens were assigned randomly to 1 of 5 treatments (10 pens/treatment) and heifers were assigned randomly to pens within BW block (10 head/pen). The treatments involved in this trial were: 1) Negative control (no implant); 2) Revalor- XR on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, all coated pellets) 3) Revalor- XH on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E; partially coated pellets); 4) Revalor- 200 on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, all uncoated pellets); and 5) Revalor- 200 on day 70. Prior to initiation of the trial, heifers were limit fed at 2% of BW with a 50% Sweet Bran (Cargill) and 50% alfalfa hay blend to limit gastrointesti-nal variation. Heifers were weighed on two consecutive days (day 0 and 1) to establish initial BW. At initiation of the trial, heifers assigned to Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, or Revalor- 200 on day 1 treatments received their respective implant All heifers were adapted to a common finishing diet over a 24- day step- up period. The amount of wet distiller’s grains, Sweet Bran and supple-ment were held constant in the step- up di-ets (15%, 25%, and 4% respectively), while 2018 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 117 or non- implanted cattle, which translated into a lower calculated yield grade (P=0.04). There was a change in the distribution of quality grade (P=0.07) and yield grade (P=0.10) between implant treatments and non- implanted heifers (Table 3).During the first 70 days of the feeding period, heifers implanted with Revalor- XH and Revalor- 200 administered on day 1 had greater ADG and were more efficient (P<0.01) compared to the other treatments (Table 4). From days 70 to 140, cattle im-planted with Revalor- XR or Revalor- 200 on day 70 gained more and were more efficient Table 1). Comparable results were observed when live final performance was evaluated.Implanted heifers had greater HCW than non- implanted heifers (P<0.01). There were no differences in HCW, dressing percentage, fat thickness, USDA marbling score, or liver scores among all implanted treatments (Table 2), but non- implanted heifers had lower dressing percentage and greater marbling scores compared to implanted heifers (P ≤0.04). Heifers within the Revalor- XH, Revalor- XR, and Revalor- 200 day 70 treatments showed an increase in LM area (P<0.01) compared to cattle implanted with Revalor- 200 on day 1 the entire feeding period (Table 1). Using carcass- adjusted performance, implant treatments impacted final BW, with implanted cattle being heavier than non- implanted cattle (P <0.01), but no differ-ence between implant treatments (P >0.87). All implanted cattle had greater ADG compared to control cattle (P=0.03) which led to changes in F:G (P <0.01). Heifers im-planted with Revalor- XR, Revalor- 200 on day 1 or 70 had the lowest F:G (P>0.21), but Revalor- 200 day 1 or 70 were no different than Revalor- XH (P>0.29), and the control heifers having the greatest F:G (P =0.01; Table 1. Performance of Heifers implanted with Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, Revalor- 200 on day 1 or day 70 compared to non- implanted heifersTreatments1 P- ValuesControl Rev- XR Rev- XH Rev- 200 d 1 Rev- 200 d 70 SEM F- TestControl  vs ImplantRev- XR vs Rev- 200 d 70Rev- XH vs Rev 200 d 70Carcass- Adjusted Performance Initial BW, lb 618 617 618 617 617 8.3 1.00 0.94 0.99 0.95Final BW, lb2 1234 1275 1276 1277 1273 12.5 0.09 <0.01 0.90 0.87DMI, lb/d 21.3 21.5 22.1 21.8 21.7 0.26 0.22 0.12 0.47 0.28ADG, lb3 3.12a 3.34b 3.34b 3.34b 3.33b 0.39 <0.01 <0.01 0.84 0.86F:G4 6.80a 6.41c 6.62b 6.54bc 6.54bc — <0.01 0.02 0.21 0.29Live PerformanceFinal BW, lb5 1241 1277 1278 1270 1270 12.9 0.26 0.03 0.69 0.67ADG, lb6 3.16a 3.35b 3.34b 3.31b 3.31b 0.044 0.02 <0.01 0.55 0.59F:G4 6.76a 6.41b 6.62a 6.58ab 6.54ab — 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.54a- c Means with different superscripts differ (P<0.05)1 Treatments include: Control- no implant; Rev- XR– Revalor- XR on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, coated pellets); Rev- XH– Revalor- XH on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, partially coated pellets); Rev- 200 d 1- Revalor- 200 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, uncoated pellets) administered on day 1; Rev- 200 d 70– Revalor- 200 implanted on day 70.2 Calculated from HCW divided by a common dressing percent (63%)3 Calculated using carcass- adjusted final BW3 Analyzed as G:F, the reciprocal of F:G5 Live final BW measured by weighing cattle on penTable 2. Carcass Characteristics of heifers implanted with Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, Reavlor- 200 on day 1 or 70 compared to non- implanted heifers.Treatments1 P- ValuesControl Rev- XR Rev- XHRev- 200d 1Rev- 200d 70 SEM F- TestControl vs ImplantRev- XR vs Rev- 200 d 70Rev- XH vs Rev 200 d 70Carcass Characteristics:HCW, lb 778 803 804 804 802 7.9 0.09 <0.01 0.92 0.88Dressing, %2 62.66 62.95 63.10 63.34 63.17 0.12 0.18 0.04 0.43 0.81LM area, sq in 12.3b 12.8a 13.0a 12.4b 12.9a 0.11 <0.01 <0.01 0.62 0.62Marbling3 569 543 537 534 529 10.6 0.09 <0.01 0.38 0.6112th rib fat, in 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.69 0.64 0.022 0.58 0.70 0.44 0.61Calculated Yield Grade3.8ab 3.7b 3.6b 3.9a 3.6b 0.077 0.04 0.28 0.47 0.78a- c Means with different superscripts differ (P<0.05)1 Treatments include: Control- no implant; Rev- XR– Revalor- XR on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, coated pellets); Rev- XH– Revalor- XH on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, partially coated pellets); Rev- 200 d 1- Revalor- 200 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, uncoated pellets) administered on day 1; Rev- 200 d 70– Revalor- 200 implanted on day 70.2 Calculated from HCW divided by live BW, with a 4% pencil shrink applied3Marbling Score: 300=Slight, 400=Small, 500=Modest, etc.118 · 2018 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report(P<0.01) than the other treatments, which is consistent with the delayed release of Revalor- XR and the delayed implanting of the Revalor- 200 day 70 heifers. Until day 175, all implanted cattle were heavier than the control (P <0.01). Interestingly, from day 140 to the end of the feeding period, the non- implanted heifers were more efficient (P=0.04) than all implanted cattle Table 3. Quality and yield grade distribution for heifers implanted with Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, and Revalor- 200 on day 0 or 70 compared to non- implanted heifersControl Revalor- XR Revalor- XH Revalor- 200 Day 0 Revalor- 200 Day 70Quality Grade, %1Prime 14.3 9.0 6.2 4.2 6.1Upper Choice3 56.1 54.0 55.7 55.4 49.0Low Choice4 22.3 28.9 26.8 33.2 35.9Select 7.2 8.1 10.3 7.1 9.0Standard 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0Yield Grade, %21 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.02 16.7 12.3 16.7 11.6 16.43 48.6 48.4 42.9 37.8 45.14 28.6 34.2 34.3 42.3 36.45 5.2 3.0 3.0 8.3 1.01 Quality Grade distribution (P=0.07)2 Yield Grade distribution (P=0.10)3 Upper Choice = marbling score ≥ 500, but < 7004 Lower Choice = marbling score ≥ 400 but <500Table 4. Interim performance of heifers implanted with Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, Revalor- 200 on day 0 or Revalor- 200 on day 70 compared to non- implanted heifers.Treatments1 P- ValuesControl Rev- XR Rev- XH Rev- 200 d 1Rev- 200  day 70 SEM F- TestCon vs ImplantRev- XR vs Rev- 200 d 70Rev- XH vs Rev- 200 d 70Day 0– 70DMI, lb/d 19.3 19.0 19.4 19.7 19.6 0.27 0.34 0.55 0.16 0.68ADG, lb 2.85a 2.87a 3.13b 3.31c 2.88a 0.063 <0.01 <0.01 0.89 <0.01F:G2 6.76a 6.62a 6.29b 5.92c 6.80a — <0.01 <0.01 0.28 <0.01Day 70– 140DMI, lb/d 21.6 21.9 22.8 22.6 22.0 0.31 0.07 0.06 0.77 0.09ADG, lb 3.21d 3.83a 3.64bc 3.45c 3.81ab 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 0.83 0.08F:G2 6.71c 5.68a 6.25b 6.53bc 5.78a — <0.01 <0.01 0.54 <0.01Day 140- HarvestDMI, lb/d 23.3 23.8 24.3 23.6 24.0 0.29 0.18 0.06 0.76 0.47ADG, lb 3.46 3.33 3.26 3.16 3.23 0.09 0.23 0.05 0.46 0.82F:G2 6.71a 7.14ac 7.46bc 7.46bc 7.46bc — <0.01 <0.01 0.37 0.93a- c Means with different superscripts differ (P<0.05)1 Treatments include: Control- no implant; Rev- XR– Revalor- XR on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, coated pellets); Rev- XH– Revalor- XH on day 1 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, partially coated pellets); Rev- 200 d 1- Revalor- 200 (200 mg TBA and 20 mg E, uncoated pellets) administered on day 1; Rev- 200 d 70– Revalor- 200 implanted on day 70.2 G:F was analyzed, the reciprocal of F:Gand the non- implanted heifers numerically gained more than implanted treatments.ConclusionAll implanted cattle had greater ADG and were more efficient than non- implanted cattle. Interim data show that heifers implanted with Revalor- XH and Revalor- 200 on day 1 performed better and were more efficient during the first 70 days, however, this changed after day 70. Heifers implanted with Revalor- XR and Revalor- 200 on day 70 had greater ADG and were more efficient than other heifers during days 70 to 140. Revalor- XR, Revalor- XH, and Revalor- 200 administered on day 70 had larger LM area and YG than 2018 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 119 Caitlin A. Ohnoutka, graduate studentBradley M. Boyd, research technicianF. Henry Hilscher, feedlot managerGrant I. Crawford, Merck Animal HealthBrandon L. Nuttelman, Merck Animal HealthGalen E. Erickson, Professional Animal Science, LincolnRevalor- 200 on day 1 and control cattle, but not significantly different marbling scores among implant treatments, showing that the more aggressive and/or delayed implant strategies improved yield grade without having negative effects on marbling com-pared to cattle implanted once on arrival.

Effect of Revalor-XR and Revalor-XH on Heifer Performance and Carcass Characteristics

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2010&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Effect of Revalor-XR and Revalor-XH on Heifer Performance and Carcass Characteristics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska