implant strategies

Report
Implant Strategies
ANS 426
Implants



Perhaps the most studied beef
management tool on the planet
Effects on performance well
understood
Carcass quality effects are a
byproduct of performance studies
Implants Now Available for
Cattle  EB20/PROG200 Synovex-S, Component E-S














EB20/TEST200 Synovex-H, Component E-H
E 25.7 Compudose, E 45 Encore
TBA 140 Component T-S, Finaplix-S ; TBA 200 FinaplixH, Component T-H
E24/TBA120 Revalor-S, Component TE-S, Synovex
T120
E14/TBA140 Revalor-H, Component TE-H
E28/TBA200 Synovex Plus
E20/TBA200 Revalor-200, Component TE-200
Z36 Ralgro, Z72 Magnum
EB10/PROG 100 Synovex-C, Component E-C
E8/TBA 40 Revalor-G, Component TE-G, Synovex T40
E16/TBA80 Revalor-IS, Component TE-IS, Synovex T80
E8/TBA80 Revalor-IH, Component TE-IH
E10/TBA100 Synovex Choice
E40/TBA200 Revalor-XS
32 Implants differing in:
 Delivery system payout duration
 Active ingredient
 Potency
How Implants Work
Pituitary
ESTROGENS
ANDROGENS
Growth hormone
Beta agonists
MUSCLE
Protein synthesis
X
Protein breakdown
Implants by active
ingredient and potency
 Low potency estrogen
 Ralgro, Synovex-C, Component E-C
 Low potency combination
 Revalor-G, Component TE-G,
 Moderate potency estrogen
 Magnum, Synovex-S, Synovex-H,
Component E-S, Component E-H,
Compudose, Encore
Implants by active ingredient
and potency
 Moderate potency androgen
 Finaplix-H, Component T-H, Component T-S, FinaplixS
 Moderate potency combination
 Revalor-IS, Revalor-IH, Synovex Choice, Component
TE-IS, Component TE-IH,
 High potency combination
 Revalor-S, Revalor-H, Component TE-S, Component
TE-H, Revalor-200, Component TE-200 , Synovex
Plus, Revalor-XS
Implants
 Improve rate and efficiency of weight
gain
 Have greater response in animals that
have genetic potential and proper
nutrition
 CP of diet important
 Will not compensate
for poor management
Implanting
 Implanting castrated calves recovers
the weight gain lost from castrating
 Hormone replacement therapy
 Bull calves are often discounted at
the sale barn
 Therefore implanting adds value while
avoiding discounts for intact males
Designing an implant strategy
 The last implant before you market the cattle is
the most important
 Market at weaning
 calfhood implant will add 20-30 lb. to weaning
weight (low dose estrogen)
 Market after backgrounding
 weaning implant will improve ADG 10-12%, F/G 78% (mod dose estrogen)
 Stocker cattle
 moderate dose estrogen or low dose combination
Are there ever reasons not to
implant stocker and feeder
calves?
 If gains are low(<1 lb/d)
 10% of 0.5 lbs is 0.05 lbs/d
 Niche marketing strategy such as
"natural" beef
 When calves are sold based on
carcass quality grade
Strategies
 Thumb rule: The most important
implant is the one used the last 100
days of ownership




Cow-calf -- calfhood implant
Background --weaning implant
Stocker -- turnout implant
Feedlot -- terminal or reimplant
Implanted replacement
heifers
 Will have reduced reproductive performance?
 Depend on many factors



age at implanting
plane of nutrition after implanting
type of implant used

Implanted at or near birth have been reduced pregnancy rates
by as much as 40 percent.

Estrogen and progesterone caused their uterus at 15 months of
age to be lighter, less muscular, and to have a thinner lining
(endometrium).
Implanted replacement
heifers


Implanting older heifer calves has not necessarily resulted in
the same severe decrease in fertility as those implanted at or
near birth.
Heifers implanted once between 1 and 14 months



no decrease in pregnancy percentages if they were fed to gain 1.1
to 1.25 pounds per day.
if the nutrition is not adequate to support this moderate rate of
growth, pregnancy rates have been decreased by as much as 42
percent.
Some studies have shown that implanting heifers may delay
the occurrence of their first heat by one or two 21-day cycles.
Is implanting economically
justified in heifers?
 Example




100-cow herd
85 calves are weaned
42 are heifers
22 to be kept as replacements
 How much extra income would you receive if
you implanted all the heifers?


Extra gain15 lbs per heifer ($1.00 per lb)
Implant cost $1.25 per hd
Bottom line on implanting
replacement heifers



If replacement heifers are selected before implanting, implant
only the ones to be sold as feeders at weaning.
If backgrounding all calves then just implant at weaning and
only implant those to be sold as feeders
If replacement heifers are not selected before implanting




Make sure heifers are implanted only if old enough (45 days of age for
Synovex C; 30 days of age for Ralgro).
Do not re-implant replacement heifers since this will reduce their fertility.
Insure nutrition is adequate to support growth rates of at least 1.2 lb/d.
Never implant breeding bulls. This can cause permanent
damage to their testicles.
Are there ever problems with
implanting and re-implanting feeder
heifers?
 If heifers are implanted with an estrogenic
hormone shortly before weaning, and reimplanted with an estrogenic implant shortly
after weaning, "estrogen stacking" may occur.
 Incidence of "bullers" may rise.
 "Bullers" are calves which are continually
ridden by their pen or pasture mates, resulting
in injury and even death.
 Using androgenic implant will can avoid the
buller effect
Implanting strategies for the
feedlot
The implant should be payed out by the time they go to the packer.
Never re-implant animals before the previous implant is payed out
Response to Implants
(Younger Steers)
 Comparison of Estrogen 25%
reimplant (E/E),
Combination reimplant 20%
(ET/ET) and delayed
implant (C/ET) vs
15%
Controls
 Equally treated
10%
comparisons as part of
a 7-trial ISU summary 5%
ADG
F/G
0%
E/E
ET/ET
C/ET
Response to Implants (Yearling
Steers)
How much gain is 20% if gaining 3.5lbs/d for 100 days?
ET/ET
ET
E/E
ADG
F/G
E
 Comparison of Estrogen
25%
(E), Estrogen Reimplant
20%
(E/E), Combination (ET)
15%
and Combination
reimplant(ET/ET) vs
10%
controls
5%
 Equally treated
comparisons as part of a 7- 0%
trial ISU summary
Return for feedlot producers
 $5 return above the cost of the implant can be
expected for each $1 price of a bushel of corn.
 Adding androgen to an estrogen implant
system will return an additional $2 above the
cost of the implant for each $1 price of a
bushel of corn.
 If corn cost $5/bu

An estrogenic implant return would =$25

Combination would return would =$35
The Normal Growth Curve
Management
for more rapid
growth changes
the shape
Muscle Growth
Fat Growth
Weight at 28% Body Fat
Frame Size
1
2
3
4
Steer
882
954
1029 1102 1175 1250 1322 1395 1470
Heifer
705
763
824
882
5
939
6
7
8
9
1001 1058 1115 1177
Implants as a Growth
Management Tool
 Importance will increase with “Value-based”
Marketing
 Aggressive Implant Programs for:
 Early-maturing, small ribeye, small carcasses
 Calf-fed British, heifers
 No implant for:
 Super-large, older cattle
 Potential over 900# carcasses
 Implant timing may be the most important
decision
Effect of Implants on Performance
and Marbling (50+ Trial Summary)
None
Estrogen
E/TBA
Initial Wt
780
776
784
Final Wt
1153
1216
1238
ADG
2.88
3.39
3.56
F/G
6.81
6.26
6.03
%Ch/Pr
64
56
54
DiCostanzo, U. of Minn
Cost of Gain with Low Feed ($85/T)
and High Feed ($240/T)
Feed COG
Low Feed
Feed COG
High Feed
Total COG
Low Feed
Total COG
High Feed
None
Estrogen
E/TBA
$29
$27
$26
$82
$75
$72
$43
$39
$37
$96
$87
$83
Select Discount ($ per head)
Estrogen
E/TBA
20% lower
percent
Choice
Low
spread
($5)
$3
$4
$8
High
spread
($20
$12
$16
$31
Return to Implants with Variable
Feed Prices and Select Discounts
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
Lo Feed-Lo QG
Lo Feed-Hi QG
Hi Feed-Hi QG
Hi Feed-Lo QG
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
-$10.00
Estrogen
E/TBA
QG wreck

similar documents