A commercial feedlot trial tested three implant strategies (Revalor- 200 on day 0, Revalor- IH on d 0 and re- implanted with Revalor- 200 on d 56, or Revalor- XH on d 0) on growth performance and carcass characteristics of heifers fed for 138 d. Th ere were no differences observed for final body weight, dry matter intake, or average daily gain on a live basis among implant strategies. Heifers implanted with Revalor- IH/200 combination had greater carcass- adjusted final body weight and improved feed conversion compared to Revalor- 200 and Revalor- XH. Hot carcass weights, dressing percent, and LM area were improved for Revalor- IH/200 implanted heifers relative to Revalor- 200 and Revalor- XH implanted heifers. Marbling score and 12th- rib fat thickness were not different among implant treatments. Heifers implanted with Revalor- IH/200 had a shift to a lower USDA yield grade distribution compared to 200 and XH implanted heifers. Th e greater concentration of trenbolone acetate and estradiol provided by Revalor- IH/200 combination slightly improved growth and carcass performance compared to the non- coated Revalor- 200 implant and partially coated Revalor- XH implant

Bundy, Sheri J.

Carlson, Zachary E.

Cooper, Robert J.

Coulson, Caitlin A.

Erickson, Galen E.

Jordon, D. J.

Nuttelman, Brandon L.

Scott, Tony L.

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
2020 
Eff ect of Revalor- XH, Revalor- 200, and Combination Revalor- IH/
Revalor- 200 on Yearling Heifer Growth Performance and Carcass 
Characteristics 
Zachary E. Carlson 
Galen E. Erickson 
Caitlin A. Coulson 
D. J. Jordon 
Robert J. Cooper 
See next page for additional authors 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Commons, Meat Science Commons, and the 
Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health Commons 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
Authors 
Zachary E. Carlson, Galen E. Erickson, Caitlin A. Coulson, D. J. Jordon, Robert J. Cooper, Tony L. Scott, 
Sheri J. Bundy, and Brandon L. Nuttelman 
94 · 2020 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
©  Th e Board Regents of the University of 
Nebraska. All rights reserved.
of similar cattle at the feedlot were used to 
estimate range of two standard deviations 
above and below the pay weight. Heifers 
outside of this range were not used on the 
study. Within the range a series of random-
ization sheets were created, one for every 
50 lb increment. Each row on every sheet 
contained a random assignment to treat-
ment so that the fi rst animal weighed that 
qualifi ed for that stratum was assigned to 
one treatment while the next animal within 
that weight range was assigned to one of the 
remaining two treatments. Treatments were 
assigned randomly to pens within blocks 
for all 24 pens. Heifers were processed, 
weighed, and assigned to treatment in a 
single event on d 0. At processing, heifers 
received Vista Once SQ (Merck) to protect 
against bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), para-
infl uenza3 (PI3), and bovine respiratory syn-
cytial virus (BRSV); and an implant based 
on the assigned treatment. In addition, 
heifers received external parasite control 
via dosing with ivermectin (Noromectin, 
Norbrook) and internal parasite control via 
drenching with fenbendazole (Safe- Guard, 
Merck) oral suspension. All heifers were 
checked for pregnancy using rectal ultra-
sound, and if pregnant, were administered 
dinoprost tromethamine (Lutalyse High-
Con, Zoetis) or both Lutalyse HighCon 
and dexamethasone if the heifer’s fetus was 
determined to be 90 d or older to induce 
abortion. Implant sites were examined 
from four replications selected randomly 
from the eight total replications 28 d aft er 
initial implanting. All three pens from the 
chosen replications were checked with the 
fi rst ten heifers out the gate selected. Aft er 
re- implanting, the remaining four replica-
tions were checked but only the pens that 
had been re- implanted with Revalor- 200. 
Pens from the remaining four replications 
that did not receive a terminal implant were 
not checked.
Cattle were housed in open lots with ad 
libitum access to water and feed. Diets were 
consistent across all treatments. Heifers 
were started on a diet consisting of 16.42% 
terminal implant protocols with increased 
growth performance and delayed fattening 
at equal days on feed. Heifers tend to have 
more adipose tissue at the same chrono-
logical age as steers and therefore poorer 
growth performance. To improve growth 
rate, HCW, and feed effi  ciency, feeding 
programs typically have more aggressive 
implant protocols containing higher levels 
of trenbolone acetate (TBA) and estradiol 
(E2). Th e objective of this study was to 
evaluate eff ects of implanting heifers with a 
partially coated Revalor- XH implant on d 0 
compared to non- coated Revalor- 200 on d 
0 or a more aggressive implant protocol of 
Revalor- IH on d 0 followed by Revalor- 200 
to target approximately 80 d with terminal 
implant on fi nishing heifer performance 
and carcass characteristics.
Procedure
Crossbred heifers (n = 1,728; initial 
BW = 906; SD = 24 lb) were utilized in a 
randomized complete block design with 
eight blocks. Heifers were sourced from sale 
barns in Nebraska and Oklahoma. Heifers 
were fed for an average of 138 d (range 
135– 139 d) from June 2018 to November 
2018 in a commercial feedlot in Nebraska. 
Treatments included: Revalor- 200 on d 0 
(200 mg TBA/20 mg E2, Merck Animal 
Health, noncoated; 200), Revalor- IH on 
d 0 (80 mg TBA/8 mg E2, Merck Animal 
Health, noncoated) and re- implanted with 
Revalor- 200 on approximately d 56 to target 
approximately 80 d with terminal implant 
(200 mg TBA/20 mg E2, Merck Animal 
Health, noncoated; IH/200), or Revalor- XH 
on d 0 [200 mg TBA and 20 mg E2, par-
tially coated (XH); Merck Animal Health, 
DeSoto, KS]. Revalor- XH contains four 
uncoated pellets (80 mg TBA and 8 mg E2) 
for immediate release and six coated pellets 
(120 mg TBA and 12 mg E2) to release 
approximately 70 to 80 d aft er implanting.
Heifers were assigned randomly to pen 
(n = 24) based on weight strata at arrival. 
Pay weight and records of historical data 
Zachary E. Carlson
Galen E. Erickson
Caitlin A. Coulson
D. J. Jordon
Robert J. Cooper
Tony L. Scott
Sheri J. Bundy
Brandon L. Nuttelman
Summary and Implications
A commercial feedlot trial tested three 
implant strategies (Revalor- 200 on day 0, 
Revalor- IH on d 0 and re- implanted with 
Revalor- 200 on d 56, or Revalor- XH on 
d 0) on growth performance and carcass 
characteristics of heifers fed for 138 d. Th ere 
were no diff erences observed for fi nal body 
weight, dry matter intake, or average daily 
gain on a live basis among implant strategies. 
Heifers implanted with Revalor- IH/200 com-
bination had greater carcass- adjusted fi nal 
body weight and improved feed conversion 
compared to Revalor- 200 and Revalor- XH. 
Hot carcass weights, dressing percent, and 
LM area were improved for Revalor- IH/200 
implanted heifers relative to Revalor- 200 
and Revalor- XH implanted heifers. Marbling 
score and 12th- rib fat thickness were not 
diff erent among implant treatments. Heifers 
implanted with Revalor- IH/200 had a shift  
to a lower USDA yield grade distribution 
compared to 200 and XH implanted heifers. 
Th e greater concentration of trenbolone 
acetate and estradiol provided by Revalor- 
IH/200 combination slightly improved 
growth and carcass performance compared 
to the non- coated Revalor- 200 implant and 
partially coated Revalor- XH implant.
Introduction
Growth promoting implants improve 
average daily gain (ADG) and hot car-
cass weight (HCW) in steers and heifers. 
Cattle tend to respond to more aggressive 
 Eff ect of Revalor- XH, Revalor- 200, and Combination 
Revalor- IH/Revalor- 200 on Yearling Heifer Growth 
Performance and Carcass Characteristics
2020 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 95 
area, marbling, USDA quality grade, and 
USDA yield grade were collected from JBS’s 
camera data. Carcass- adjusted fi nal BW was 
calculated by dividing treatment average 
HCW by the average dressing percent of 
62.35% across all study animals. In replica-
tion eight, carcass data were not collected 
on 31 carcasses from the 200 treatment. As 
a result, all live and carcass data from that 
replication were removed from analysis. 
Th erefore, growth performance and carcass 
data were analyzed with 508 heifers in 200, 
505 heifers in IH/200, and 506 heifers in 
XH (n = 1519; Table 1) as a RCBD with 7 
blocks and 7 replications.
Percent mortality was calculated by the 
total number of animals that died in a pen 
divided by the total number of animals 
enrolled in that pen. Percent removed from 
study, excluding deads, was determined by 
dividing the number of cattle removed (i.e. 
lameness or injury) per pen by total num-
ber of heifers enrolled in that pen.
Performance and carcass data were 
analyzed as a randomized complete block 
design using the MIXED procedure of 
SAS (9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). 
Treatment and block were fi xed eff ects. 
Th e model included implant treatments 
and blocks. Pen was the experimental unit. 
Treatment averages were calculated using 
the LSMEANS option of SAS. Frequency 
data, such as USDA quality grade and yield 
grade distributions, were analyzed using the 
GLIMMIX procedure of SAS using a mul-
tinomial approach. Treatment diff erences 
were signifi cant at α ≤ 0.05 and tendencies 
were discussed when 0.05 ≤ α ≤ 0.10.
Results
Th ere were eight heifers that died over 
the course of the study. Additionally, six 
heifers were removed from the trial due 
to bodily injury (i.e. dislocated hip, hoof 
issues, strained shoulder). No diff erences 
(P ≥ 0.99) were observed between implant 
treatments for percent removed from the 
study. However, a tendency (P = 0.06) was 
observed for increased mortality with heif-
ers implanted with 200 compared to IH/200 
or XH implanted heifers.
Overall, no diff erences (P = 0.48; Table 
1) were observed in live fi nal BW, DMI, and 
live ADG among implant treatment. How-
ever, heifers implanted with IH/200 were 
at a targeted rate of 300 mg/heifer for the 
last 35 d of the feeding period. Diet samples 
were obtained monthly and analyzed for 
dry matter, crude protein, crude fi ber, cal-
cium, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur, zinc, 
and copper.
Cattle were scheduled for slaughter at 
approximately 135 d (range 135– 139 d) on 
feed. Cattle were shipped by pen with each 
pen on a separate truck and trucks were 
weighed and shrunk four percent to serve 
as the average fi nal live weight. Cattle were 
processed at JBS in Grand Island, NE and 
individual carcass data were collected. Indi-
vidual HCW was collected at slaughter. Fol-
lowing a 24 hr chill, 12th- rib fat depth, LM 
dry- rolled corn, 35.0% wet distillers grains 
plus solubles, 35.0% alfalfa hay, 10.0% corn 
stalks, 3.5% supplement, and 0.08% micro- 
ingredients (DM basis). Four step- up diets 
were used to transition the heifers to the 
fi nishing diet. Approximately 98 d (range 
93– 105 d) into the trial, dry- rolled corn 
was replaced with high- moisture corn for 
all animals on trial. Th e supplement and 
micro- ingredient premixes were formulated 
to target 8.9 g/ton DM of Tylan (Elanco An-
imal Health) and 30 g/ton DM of Rumensin 
(Elanco Animal Health). Melengestrol ace-
tate (MGA, Zoetis) was fed at a rate of 0.45 
mg/heifer daily once heifers reached the 
fi nishing ration. Actogain (Zoetis) was fed 
Table 1. Performance and carcass characteristics of heifers implanted with three diff erent strategies
Item
Treatment1
SEM F- TestRev- 200 Rev- IH/200 Rev- XH
Head Count2 508 505 506 — — 
Days on Feed 137.6 137.6 137.6 — — 
Animals Removed, % 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.251 0.99
Death Loss, % 1.22 0.17 0.21 0.312 0.06
Live Performance
Initial BW 901 903 903 1.0 0.24
Final BW3, lb 1394 1398 1393 3.7 0.63
DMI, Ib/d 25.3 25.1 25.2 0.14 0.48
ADG, lb 3.58 3.60 3.56 0.029 0.67
F:G 7.09b 6.99a 7.09b — 0.05
Carcass- Adjusted Performance
Final BW4, lb 1389b 1405a 1390b 4.7 0.05
ADG, lb 3.55 3.65 3.54 0.037 0.09
F:G 7.14b 6.85a 7.09b — < 0.01
Carcass Characteristics
HCW, lb 866b 876a 867b 3.0 0.05
Dressing, % 62.1b 62.7a 62.2b 0.0011 0.01
LM area, in2 13.6b 14.1a 13.7b 0.10 0.02
Marbling5 529 523 539 5.0 0.12
12th rib fat, in 0.71 0.68 0.70 0.010 0.17
Calculated YG6 3.82a 3.63b 3.75ab 0.048 0.05
a, b Means within rows without common superscripts diff er (P ≤ 0.05)
1Treatments included: Revalor- 200 on d 0 (200 mg TBA/20 mg E2, Merck Animal Health, noncoated; 200), Revalor- IH on d 0 
(80 mg TBA/8 mg E2, Merck Animal Health, noncoated) and re- implanted with Revalor- 200 on approximately d 56 to target 
approximately 80 d with terminal implant (200 mg TBA/20 mg E2, Merck Animal Health, noncoated; IH/200), or Revalor- XH 
on d 0 [200 mg trenbalone acetate (TBA) and 20 mg estradiol (E2), partially coated (XH); Merck Animal Health, DeSoto, KS]. 
Revalor- XH contains four uncoated pellets (80 mg TBA and 8 mg E2) for immediate release and six coated pellets (120 mg 
TBA and 12 mg E2) to release approximately 70 to 80 d aft er implanting.
2 Due to missing carcass data only replications 1– 7 were analyzed for growth performance and carcass characteristics.
3Final BW is the average pen weight shrunk four percent. Subsequent ADG and F:G are calculated from shrunk fi nal BW.
4Carcass- adjusted fi nal BW was determined by dividing average HCW per treatment by the average dressing percent of 62.35%.
5USDA marbling scores. 400 = small, 500 = modest, 600 = moderate.
6YG = 2.50 + (2.5 * 12th- rib fat depth, in) + (0.2 * 3.0 KPH fat, %) + (0.0038 * HCW, lbs)— (0.32 * LM area, in2) where KPH fat 
was assumed to be 3.0 %.
96 · 2020 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
was not diff erent (P = 0.55; Table 2) among 
treatments. Th e distribution of USDA yield 
grades was signifi cantly diff erent (P < 0.01) 
with a shift  from yield grade 3 and 4 to 
yield grade 2 for IH/200 heifers.
Conclusion
Heifers implanted with the combination 
IH/200 strategy had greater carcass adjusted 
ADG and HCW, and improved feed con-
version (F:G). Final BW, DMI, and ADG 
were not diff erent among implant treat-
ments when based on live performance. 
Th e greater concentration of TBA and E2 
provided by IH/200 combination improved 
carcass weight and performance compared 
to the non- coated 200 implant and partially 
coated XH implant. While no diff erences in 
growth performance and carcass charac-
teristics were observed among 200 and XH 
implant treatments.
Zachary E. Carlson, graduate student
Galen E. Erickson, professor, Animal 
Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 
NE
Caitlin A. Coulson, Cattlemen’s Nutrition 
Services, Lincoln, NE
D. J. Jordon, Cattlemen’s Nutrition Services, 
Lincoln, NE
Robert J. Cooper, Cattlemen’s Nutrition 
Services, Lincoln, NE
Tony L. Scott, Cattlemen’s Nutrition 
Services, Lincoln, NE
Sheri J. Bundy, Cattlemen’s Nutrition 
Services, Lincoln, NE
Brandon L. Nuttelman, Merck Animal 
Health, De Soto, KS
Heifers implanted with IH/200 had 10 
and 9 lbs greater HCW than 200 and XH, 
respectively (P = 0.05). Likewise, IH/200 
implants improved dressing percentage 
and LM area compared to 200 and XH (P ≤ 
0.02). Th ere were no diff erences (P ≥ 0.12) 
in marbling score and 12th- rib fat thickness 
among implant strategies. Calculated USDA 
yield grade was improved for IH/200 treat-
ment compared to 200 treatment, with XH 
treatment being intermediate (P = 0.05). 
Th e distribution of USDA quality grades 
1.42% more effi  cient, on a live basis, com-
pared to heifers implanted with 200 or XH 
(P = 0.05). Carcass- adjusted fi nal BW for 
heifers implanted with IH/200 were 16 and 
15 lbs heavier than 200 and XH, respective-
ly (P = 0.05). Carcass- adjusted ADG tended 
to be greater for heifers implanted with 
IH/200 compared to heifers implanted with 
200 or XH (P = 0.09). Heifers implanted 
with IH/200 were 3.7% more effi  cient (P < 
0.01), on a carcass- adjusted basis, compared 
to heifers implanted with 200 and XH.
Table 2. Quality grade and yield grade distribution of heifers fed for an average of 138 d implanted 
with three diff erent strategies
Item
Treatment1
P- ValuesRev- 200 Rev- IH/200 Rev- XH
Quality Grade2, %
Prime 8.9% 8.0% 11.0% 0.55
Upper Choice 47.7% 46.1% 49.5%
Choice 35.8% 34.6% 31.0%
Select 7.3% 11.1% 8.5%
Standard 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%
Yield Grade Distribution2, %
YG 1 0.8% 1.5% 1.7% <0.01
YG 2 13.3% 20.6% 12.7%
YG 3 46.3% 44.7% 48.3%
YG 4 33.3% 29.6% 34.0%
YG 5 6.3% 3.6% 3.2%
1Treatments included: Revalor- 200 on d 0 (200 mg TBA/20 mg E2, Merck Animal Health, noncoated; 200), Revalor- IH on d 0 
(80 mg TBA/8 mg E2, Merck Animal Health, noncoated) and re- implanted with Revalor- 200 on approximately d 56 to target 
approximately 80 d with terminal implant (200 mg TBA/20 mg E2, Merck Animal Health, noncoated; IH/200), or Revalor- XH 
on d 0 [200 mg trenbalone acetate (TBA) and 20 mg estradiol (E2), partially coated (XH); Merck Animal Health, DeSoto, KS]. 
Revalor- XH contains four uncoated pellets (80 mg TBA and 8 mg E2) for immediate release and six coated pellets (120 mg 
TBA and 12 mg E2) to release approximately 70 to 80 d aft er implanting.
2All numbers are expressed as percentages. Th e yield grade and quality grade values represent the proportion of carcasses within 
each group that received a yield and quality grade.


Eff ect of Revalor- XH, Revalor- 200, and Combination Revalor- IH/Revalor- 200 on Yearling Heifer Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2097&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Eff ect of Revalor- XH, Revalor- 200, and Combination Revalor- IH/Revalor- 200 on Yearling Heifer Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries