Implants have been used in the cattle industry since the 1960s on hundreds of millions of cattle in North America, as well as in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to name a few.
We know the benefits of increased gain and feed efficiency that come with a small amount of hormone in the right proportions placed in the ear.
Gains will increase by 10 to 25 percent and feed efficiency will rise by up to 15 percent.
The increased feed efficiency is important because the biggest cost in producing beef is feed.
Read Also
Sask. ag group wants strychnine back
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government asking for emergency use of strychnine to control gophers
The amount of improved gain depends on the cattle type, including such things as breed, gender and phenotype.
It is much easier to implant now that chutes have neck restraint bars and shoulder restraint devices. Gun design has improved so that crushed implants and bunching are things of the past.
By following the best implanting technique, such as swiping the implant needle through a disinfectant after use, you can get maximum benefit.
Work with your veterinarian to develop a customized implant program for your farm.
There have been a multitude of trials over the decades comparing implants against one another or comparing calves implanted versus those not implanted. Now the only trials we see are when a new implant hits the market.
Weight gains vary from 20 pounds to much more than 50 lb. with the longer lasting finishing implants.
Most of the implants use a combination of estrogens and androgens, either natural or synthetic, to achieve better weight gains.
Implants will provide a conservative 15-25 to 1 financial return to the producer.
A good time to implant is as soon as bull calves are castrated. Young calves have a greater feed efficiency and conversion rate (four lb. feed for one lb. of gain) so the younger ages are the ideal time to start most implant programs.
The only exceptions to this would be keeping heifers for breeding or intact bulls for breeding or those to be castrated at an older age.
If you market into a branded program prohibiting the use of growth promoters, the calves should be worth at least 20 percent more to compensate for the reduced gain and feed efficiency.
Other livestock producers, such as those with bison, leave bulls intact to use the natural hormones to maximize the animal’s growth.
Many European Union countries raise and slaughter intact bulls so they do not need to implant.
Other countries calve on vast stretches of land so don’t handle the cattle enough to implant.
North America’s beef industry has a more hands-on style of management so you might as well get maximum production and fully use the genetics and growth potential in your herd by implanting.
Without the implants it simply takes more time and more feed to produce the same weight of calf. Sustainability of the cattle industry becomes compromised.
The three big pharmaceutical companies that produce implants (Merck, Zoetis and Elanco) spend time and money explaining the safety of implants to producers and the public. They are so safe it is really very much a non-issue in my opinion.
It is too bad businesses such as A & W in their recent ad campaign try to cast doubt on the subject.
I believe ranching is more sustainable with the use of implants among other things to assist in growth.
From an environmental perspective, faster growing cattle produce less greenhouse gases, use less land and drink less water over their lifetime and are more efficient.
If cattle were not implanted, dewormed or given other growth promoting technologies beef would cost even more to raise.
We need to take this information to consumers. I believe many people are ill-informed or have a total misconception about the safety of implanted beef. Even some producers have these ill-conceived notions.
Unless calves are in some branded or natural type program, 95 percent of calves entering the feedlot are implanted immediately. This is why A& W has had to source beef from Australia and the U.S. to get enough “no added hormone” products for its burgers.
A&W fails to explain that castration removes many natural hormones, which are replaced by implants that promote growth.
The chart showing estrogen levels in various foods helps to explain why I think there should be no concern over safety. Many plant products that we consume have much higher levels of say estrogens than implanted beef.
People have lots of hormones circulating naturally and a lot of plants or even dairy products have many more hormones than a meal size portion of beef.
All these levels are well below the residue limits set by our governing bodies.
In a recent beef productivity study, only about 25 percent of the cow calf producers implanted so we have a great capacity for improvement in the industry.
