• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Implanting calves

BMR,

We did a year ago and Im not sure I would do it again. We implanted half of them and didnt see a whole lot of difference in them come weaning time. We used synovex, but if we want to be part of a natural beef program we cant implant.
 
We have been doing that. I do know of some folks who always implant and they didn't last year and their weaning weights were not as good as usual. The data shows implants do pay, but they can't be part of a "Natural Beef" program. What I can find out tho, doesn't look like the producer gets paid enough to quit implanting. The pay doesn't make up for the lost weight.

BTW, I think perhaps Synovex C is a better choice than Ralgro. We switched to Ralgo and now we are switching back to Synovex. We NEVER implant our heifer calves though.
 
Yes, on the new steers only.
I could elaborate, or expound, but I choose not to at this time
Forty pounds is forty pounds, and I ran a check weigh in 89. I believe.
 
Ralgro is best for 90 days, then reimplant.

If you're not reimplanting, Synovex beats ralgro.

Buy Synovex S and split half the pellets into an old Synovex wheel - you can save about $200 per hour this way
 
Every bull calf that gets banded gets ralgro,if they are back grounded longer than 90 days ,they get reimplanted,we dont implant heifers............good luck
PS Band em at about 6 weight,take em to 8
 
We don't implant at branding because we don't castarate until september.


Research that I have seen says that we are getting a lower% choice than we did 15 years ago. I think most has to do with implants not poorer genetics as some are suggesting.

I am sure that you can't tell it on the little baby calves but I don't like Ralgro in the feedyard as their attitude about life changes in about 24 hours.


Currently there is a $20 cwt. premium for all natural fat cattle. So if someone can go that route it will pay.
 
WB said:
Currently there is a $20 cwt. premium for all natural fat cattle. So if someone can go that route it will pay.
Click to expand...

Where is that premium at?
I have not seen any markets promoting all natural here in Ky. Laura's Lean Beef is all that I know of, and we don't have enough for full loads.
 
There is no premium paid here for "All Natural". We had this discussion at a branding yesterday. When the guys see the premium then they will quit implanting.

Interesting question regarding the Synovex S. Maybe that is what we should use since we implant stictly steers. We used to use Synovex C but we were doing heifers too at that time. We don't reimplant so that is one reason we decided to go back to Synovex.

What are your thoughts on this?

And Buyer, that is good to hear. The bottom line is "how much more will they pay for all-natural?" I have even heard of ranchers in E. Montana that were on the natural program, going back to implanting because it cost them too much money to go natural and they didn't feel they got paid for it. I can steer some potential folks your way if you are interested.
 
We have used Ralgro for years. Found that most of the difference is in heifers - never keep replacements since we have a terminal cross.

The difference between steers and heifers at shipping time is much much less than when we did not implant.

There may be a slight premium for non-implanted calves but I think that most of this is from stockers and feeders who plan on implanting themselves and getting the large part of the gain.

Jury is still out on implanting.
 
Feeders see the implanted vs non implanted difference more than primary producers do.

The difference is on cost of gain. The implanted cattle were feeding cheaper by about $80 per head a few years back. The actual cost of feed will change the exact savings, but it is there.

The feeders also said implanted cattle did not marble as well as non implanted cattle, but at the time the small premiums for more marbling weren't covering the $80 in feed savings. That also would be subject to change as the market responds to more quality factors.

You need a price increase of about $6.75/cwt to make up the $80 feed cost of not implanting.
 
With all due respect....... Hardly anyone implants their calves where we sell our calves.... And they take a big hit on price if they do.... In our limited experiance with our home raised butchered beef... Non implanted was better..... But to each there own.........What works for some doesn't work for others..........
 
Funny how areas differ-- Now up here in my little corner of the world the buyers have been wanting the All Naturals for 3-4 years-- started with the year Future Beef was buying everything up here....Any calves that recieve antibiotics are red tagged or yellow tagged when given the shots and pulled from the loads...Also for several years they have been wanting hot iron branded with corresponding affidavits of feed, no implants or antibiotics, area raised, and birthdate (calving period)...

These type cattle have topped our market....

Yesterday Simonsens, from north of Malta, sold 1000+ head of 575 wt steers on Superior for $127.50= $733.12

Another outfit out of Billings sold about 1000 in separate weight lots
615 wts at $126.25= $777
525 wts at $125.25= $657


All these were sold as Owner Certified All Natural- and they were some of the top sellers yesterday...

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought these were flat good prices for our country and the way the market is setting right now...

Buyer- The buyers here are telling the ranchers the same thing- they want the naturals... Several have told me that they don't care if they are NAIS tagged or not as long as they are branded- they say the feeder can do that later- but they want no implants and no antibiotics- all natural...None have said they can guarantee me I could get the $3 back it costs to buy the NAIS tag.....

Also on yesterdays Superior it looked like they were willing to pay a little more for the bigger calves again too......
 

Latest posts

Back
Top