Combat lower calf prices with more pounds
Apr 23, 2007 12:07 PM
Kindra Gordon, BEEF magazine
Growth implants offer a weighty alternative
The repercussions of high-priced corn are on everyone’s mind these days. Not only are many wondering about the supply of corn, but how the price will affect cattle feeders’ bids for calves next fall.
To offset lower calf prices, producers may want to consider using growth implants on the ranch to garner extra pounds come sale time, says South Dakota State University's (SDSU) Robbi Pritchard. The nutrition professor and researcher is well-known across the industry for his work with implant strategies.
“Implants are a way to add pounds to calves. And for the next couple years, a few pounds will help the rancher’s paycheck a lot,” says Pritchard in reference to the forecast for lower prices.
Pritchard says ranchers often ask if the cost of implanting pays for the extra beef produced? Acknowledging that many producers have dropped implants in recent years in order to qualify for natural programs, Pritchard calculates that non-implanted steers need at least a $4.50/cwt. premium to make up for the extra pounds produced by implanted steers.
By comparison, Pritchard says implanted steers on average will finish on the same day and at the same grade as non-implanted cattle but 100 lbs. heavier.
Of this, Pritchard says, “Your birthweight didn’t go up. Your cows didn’t get bigger. We did it with a couple of implants. Without implants you would need to run more cows to get more beef.”
Pritchard calls implants, “good tools with a bad image.” Regarding human health, he cites statistics that show estradiol -- the hormone in growth implants -- is produced naturally in humans (50 µg/day in men, 20,0000 µg/day in women) and soyoil (30,000 µg/oz.). Comparatively, the estradiol content in a single Ralgro implant is 12,000 µg.
Likewise, the estradiol content in 1 oz. of beef from a natural steer is 0.00037 µg, which compares similarly to 1 oz. of beef from an implanted steer at 0.00047 µg -- and is miniscule compared to the naturally occurring levels mentioned above.
Regarding carcass quality -- the focus of much of his research -- Pritchard reports there's no negative effect when implants are administered at the proper dose and timing.
He cites one study he conducted in which 200 head were implanted and had an average USDA Yield Grade of 2.77, with 59% Certified Angus Beef or better. The cattle were on feed 154 days and had an average daily gain of 3.5 lbs., 795-lb. hot carcass weight, and 13.5-sq.-in. ribeye area. These calves received two implants (one at branding or preconditioning depending on cow age, and one during the finishing phase.)
Pritchard says implants can be used safely at all three production phases for slaughter cattle -- suckling/branding, backgrounding and finishing. Implanting replacement females destined for breeding isn't recommended.
If calves are “managed right,” he says research shows there's no effect on marbling, percent yielding Choice or higher, or dark cutters. The key to successful implant use is proper timing of administration. Implant performance is dependent on the nutrition the calf is receiving.
“Calves need to be healthy and eating well when they’re implanted so they can use the hormones for growth. Then there’s no quality-grade deterioration,” he says.
His research shows implants given when calves are still on the cow -- either at spring branding or when preconditioning shots are given prior to weaning -- offer the best boost.
In determining when to give the implant to suckling calves, Pritchard says age of the dam must be considered. He’s compared giving implants to calves in May (branding time) vs. August (preconditioning time) and found calves on young cows respond best to implants in late August, whereas calves on mature cows do better if implanted in May.
Article continued on next page >
Subscribe to American Cowman Update e-newsletter!
Breaking industry news in your e-mail inbox every other week!
Subscribe at http://subscribe.americancowman.com/subscribe.cfm.