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

implants

Help Support Ranchers.net:

T

tlakota

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
aberdeen,sd
So i was just talking to the ol man today about implants. We've never used them but are lookin at ways to increase weaning weights. We were talking that we would do it now and band the bulls or would it be best to just put implants in now? Also i read somewhere that it is alright to do to heifers rite now but if you plan on them being replacements that you should now give another implant in the fall. Any information would be greatly appreciated
 
A young fella I know is just back from university in Wy. He says the school did a large study on implants and proved they made no difference in weaning weights. I allways kinda wondered.
 
tlakota said:
So i was just talking to the ol man today about implants. We've never used them but are lookin at ways to increase weaning weights. We were talking that we would do it now and band the bulls or would it be best to just put implants in now? Also i read somewhere that it is alright to do to heifers rite now but if you plan on them being replacements that you should now give another implant in the fall. Any information would be greatly appreciated
Click to expand...

I have used Ralgro in my steer calves, never did a test to see the difference. If you implant your calves now I sure wouldn't reimplant them in the fall if they are to be replacements. I think even if your considering them for replacements i would not even do them once.
 
All the studies conducted by people selling the things show they work great. All the studies I tried at home show its a waste of time, energy and money. I do not think they work at all. The last year I used them on steers, my heifers outweighed my steers! You'll do way more with genetics than implants. I quit implants 20 years ago. Other management practices, and bull selection have helped raise weaning weights above what they were when I was playing with synthetic methods. Market demands are against them too. I butchered a lot with and without implants, and noticed a marked increase in abscess growth on the liver with implants.
 
you need energy to make the implants work. Here our grass dosn't have a lot of punch and we don't creep so I don't implant until weaning and the calves are in the feedlot. If the calves are exotics or exotic crosses the implants arn't going to work as well as in straight british calves.
 
Andy said:
you need energy to make the implants work. Here our grass dosn't have a lot of punch and we don't creep so I don't implant until weaning and the calves are in the feedlot. If the calves are exotics or exotic crosses the implants arn't going to work as well as in straight british calves.
Click to expand...

Been taking those smart pills again huh andy ? no wonder you can bale hay at 12 mph.....LOL.............good luck
 
We implant steer calves but never replacement heifers.
Last year we did not implant anything and our steer calves
were lighter. But there are other things to take into consideration
besides the implant.

Actually the implant works better on spring calves if you implant
in June. Doing it too early is a waste of time.

Good luck in your decision. I know there is a lot of data out
there that says you will get 20-25 lbs. added weaning weight
and that data has been around for a long while.
 
Implants are a waste of money,I think the fact that they are easy to use and inexpensive,add good advertising,makes them marketable..............good luck
PS If someone can post a scientific study on implants,"not funded by the maker" I would sure like to see it.
 
Implants are a waste of money,I think the fact that they are easy to use and inexpensive,add good advertising,makes them marketable..............good luck
PS If someone can post a scientific study on implants,"not funded by the maker" I would sure like to see it.
Click to expand...

Check out the work done by SDSU and you can see that implants have a great ROI. But you need good managment to make them work. Implanting cattle correctly is a skill and if your cattle didn't respond to the implant you did something wrong.
 
lakota:

In response to your original question, SDSU (as Andy has indicated) does lots of independent research on implanting and implanting strategies. They also have done some work comparing implants and leaving bulls intact and castrating later (at weaning.)

Here is a link to one piece of research they've done:

http://ars.sdstate.edu/extbeef/2004/BEEF_2004-11_Bruns.pdf

One thing to remember is that if you late castrate, you'll like lose some post weaning performance. I don't know when you market your calves, but this could have a pretty significant impact on pay weight if you sell shortly after weaning.

If you are looking for a way to regain some value from not implanting, and also aren't wanting to late castrate (versus castrating at branding, turnout, or in the springtime,) why don't you look at natural programs?

If you do market as "natural eligible", that means that you'll have to do more than not implanting, you'll also not be able to not market calves that have been treated with antibiotics as natural eligible, or feed those natural eligible calves antibiotics or feed additives, such as Rumensin or Tylan.

Haymaker, we don't implant, but I'll agree with FH that lots of independent studies have been completed that have not been funded by implant companies. Check out the above link and look around on SDSU's website. I think Robbie Pritchett is about as likely to be paid off as you would Haymaker. He's pretty independent, to say the least!

Andy is correct, if you implant, it certainly pays to "do it right." Oklahoma State University did a really interested study on the effects of abscessed implants. They showed that if implants were abscessed, cattle actually peformed worse than if they had not been implanted at all.

Lakota, I hope we've helped. Seriously, if the natural deal works into your management style, give it some thought. Likewise, to age verification. Both have been paying pretty good dividends.

Cheers---

TTB :wink:
 
Andy said it. Implants work. Let's get serious here. Yes, you need enough energy intake to get the good out of them. Just like giving a teenage boy some additional testosterone on top of what he's already producing on his own. He's not going to really be able to grow muscle or bone any faster unless he's getting plenty of nutritition.

I'm not a big advocate of implanting calves before weaning. The feedlot is the best place to get the return on investment. Also, if you're looking to sell cattle on a grid, you can easily mis-manage implants in cattle that are on pasture or aftermath forage. Done correctly, you can get a significant return on implants and not give up very much marbling at all through the feedlot phase. There are multiple implant progams and strategies that a person can use. Anything from "just barely" to "full throttle". But to say that implants are just a sales gimmick or something, well that's just not reality. :???:

Implanting heifers that are intended for replacement purposes isn't very wise. That's my opinion and I think it pretty well matches the PhD's, although I hate to admit it.

HP
 
I have tried Synovex, Ralgro, Cattle Growth Implants ...and been disappointed in all of them,I have read all the propaganda about implants too.
And while I will admitt there may be some slight advantage to implanting,a person will do much bettter concentrating on genetics/hybid vigor.
The last article I read on delayed castration/implanting made alot of sense,problem was it only provided minimum gain,not worth the trouble............good luck
PS How complicated is implanting........ LOL,caint be any harder than baling hay at 12 MPH :roll:
 
turkey track

Im just out of high school and don tknow a whole lot about the natural and age verification programs. I believe all my calves are natural right now but i guess we dont see them as natural. Only shots they get are the 5 and 7 way. Can you tell me a little more about the age verification too?
 
I guess I'm one of the anti implants folks...I'm not much for adding any chemicals or drugs for any kind of performance enhancement....

Main seller for me was a father/son operation I know- that each runs their own herd (all from the original herd)- same pasture type with herds just separated by a fence...Father implants- son doesn't, but has worked a lot harder on getting the best simmi/red angus bulls and genetics for several years-- sons calves outweigh the fathers every year and the son gets a $5-$10cwt higher price for his calves being "all natural".....

I think there will be a big push to ban implants and all hormones and steroids- along with the feeding of a lot of the antibiotics worldwide within the next few years- and if we want to participate in any type of this "global trade", we'll have to follow suit.....
 
Very sound thoughts, Oldtimer. I agree with all that you said. No, I'm not jumping the fence. I believe that implants do provide an economic return that is beneficial in terms of pounds and feed conversion. At the same time, everything that you pointed out, Oldtimer, makes a heck of a lot of sense. It would be fine with me if we just didn't have implants at all.

HP
 
We don't implant here, usually the feeders will pay a bit more, or so it seams, for ones that weren't implanted than ones that were.. You might get that money back however if you had the extra pounds from implanting.. We don't creep, we don't have high, fast growing cont mixed calves at the moment so implants, well, just might not pay at the moment.. I kind of see what OT is talking about coming around sooner or later too with the push against implants, steroids and antibiotics in the not so distant future... Whether the folks pushing for this are right or wrong I won't get into it but man, the folks we know who aren't in animal ag do talk about it from time to time with us.. The pig guys are really worried about it, I know that much.
 
I guess I am the only believer in implants at branding time. We do it with Ralgro and it would be really hard to get us to quit. This year for the first time we didn't do our heifer calves and there was a big difference in their weights at weaning. The heifers were lighter than they had been in years. The implants are not a band-aid for poor cattle we are very progressive and use very good bulls and all of our heifers calves that we sell go back to the country for breeding so I know we are doing something right.

Our Rationale: Ralgro costs $.90 per head. The implant only has to put on an extra .75 of a pound to pay for itself at $1.20/lb. Anything over that and I believe it pays. As for the natural side of things. Let's say you get $2/cwt premium on a 500# steer. That's $10 per head. Figure implants put on 15# @ $1.20/lb that equals $18/ head premium. The way we see it until natural really starts to pay or they force us to quit using it we will stick with the implant at spring branding time.

On another note I had a friend who is a cattle buyer tell me that an Implant of Ralgro at branding time is such a low dose and is all gone by weaning time that they will still market those calves as natural when they are finished and ready for the plant.
 
jtg said:
I guess I am the only believer in implants at branding time. We do it with Ralgro and it would be really hard to get us to quit. This year for the first time we didn't do our heifer calves and there was a big difference in their weights at weaning. The heifers were lighter than they had been in years. The implants are not a band-aid for poor cattle we are very progressive and use very good bulls and all of our heifers calves that we sell go back to the country for breeding so I know we are doing something right.

Our Rationale: Ralgro costs $.90 per head. The implant only has to put on an extra .75 of a pound to pay for itself at $1.20/lb. Anything over that and I believe it pays. As for the natural side of things. Let's say you get $2/cwt premium on a 500# steer. That's $10 per head. Figure implants put on 15# @ $1.20/lb that equals $18/ head premium. The way we see it until natural really starts to pay or they force us to quit using it we will stick with the implant at spring branding time.

On another note I had a friend who is a cattle buyer tell me that an Implant of Ralgro at branding time is such a low dose and is all gone by weaning time that they will still market those calves as natural when they are finished and ready for the plant.
Click to expand...
Some neighbors did a gate cut test on ralgro. They pulled 40 from the same field, split them and implanted half. The implanted half was 8 or 10 lbs lighter as a group and ended up gaining 28# more in the 90 day test and were heavier at the end of the test than their counterparts that were unimplanted. They were pulled from a field they had been in where they were receiving 3 or 4 lbs of feed per day and grazing stockpiled fescue. They were implanted and turned back out in the same field , same management.
 
JTG, I'm not arguing with your math or logic. Just making one clarification. Most of the "Natural" beef programs today require that the animal never ever receive antibiotics or growth promotants. That's not to say that it applies to all of them, but I would say most. The current USDA definition of "Natural" is basically a joke. It is the following:

·The product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, or chemical preservative or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient; and

·The product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed

This does not mean that the animal itself cannot have received any artificial or synthetic ingredient, just the actual beef product. I'd imagine that most consumers are thinking of something a little different when they see the word "Natural". USDA is supposed to be coming up with a better, more refined definition for natural, but it's government so I'm not holding my breath.

HP
 

Latest posts

Top