Hormones economical if used right

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Published: August 19, 2004

Hormone implants are part of nearly every profitable cattle feeding operation.

Larry Frischke of Wyeth Animal Health in Alberta said the money that implants make for producers appears as a reduction in feed and days in the feedlot.

“It shows up as money you didn’t spend. So it doesn’t matter what cattle prices are, it improves your cost of production,” he said.

The use of growth promotion implants while a calf is still suckling adds about 20 pounds to the average animal by weaning time, according to Shering-Plough’s Guy Gamberg.

Read Also

Agriculture ministers have agreed to work on improving AgriStability to help with trade challenges Canadian farmers are currently facing, particularly from China and the United States. Photo: Robin Booker

Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes

federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million

Once calves enter the feedlot, their time on feed can be reduced by staged implanting with estrogenic stimulants and later on estradiol combined with testosterone or trenbolone acetate, TBA.

Androgenic implants, typically TBAs, increase the muscle cells’ ability to produce protein, resulting in faster muscle growth while also reducing muscle tissue breakdown.

Implanting cattle with hormones reduces marbling but that effect can be reduced to negligible levels when managed well, Gamberg said.

Staging the implants is critical to balancing the deposits of fat and feed efficiency, said Mike Paterson of Elanco Animal Health.

In tests done by South Dakota State University, estrogen implants allowed animals to gain 0.33 pounds more a day, which added 35 lb. to their feedlot weight.

Androgenic implants added 55 lb., increasing average daily gain by half a lb.

Will Lowe, who buys cattle for Cargill in High River, Alta., said producers need to balance marbling and meat tenderness with feedlot performance.

“The trend of our customers is towards 90 percent tender. Some of our customers such as (the grocery store chain) Kroger in the U.S. guarantee (tenderness) to their customers, so we have guarantee it to them,” he said.

“Not going too aggressive with the implants too early is part of getting the grades you want as a cattle feeder,” he said.

When cattle first reach a feedlot, they should be implanted with a lower dose of hormones. Save the larger doses for when the animal is gaining more slowly in later life.

Jean Lundquist of Intervet, an animal health supply company, said the strategy is simple: “Start from the day you want to deliver the animal and count backwards. Figure out when the implant will be wearing off. Move backwards on the calendar from your delivery date to determine when you will implant the calf.”

This is especially important with the terminal implant. Too late and the animal will not gain efficiently for as many days as it could; too early and marbling will be reduced and the incidence of dark cutting increased.

Gamberg said planning for 60 days of estradiol when the animals arrive at the feedlot, followed by TBA implants after that, will maximize feed efficiency and average daily gain.

Making sure the implants are well placed is a critical job, said Frischke.

“Laying those four or so little pellets down in a straight line, not bunched up in a pile, means they will dissolve at the right rate. And if they’re crushed, all the hormones are released at once.”

When using older style guns is to carefully slide the needle out of the ear as the trigger is pulled, Frischke said.

“Don’t push the pellets in; slide the needle out.”

Some newer guns push the needle out as the trigger is pulled. Make sure the ear is clean and dry and do not skip the needle over the skin, filling it with dirt before insertion. That can cause infections that wall off the pellets and prevent them from being fully absorbed.

“Or worse, an abscess that bursts, popping out the pellets on the ground. Not only don’t you get the financial effect of implanting, but you lose the $5-$25 you spent on it,” said Frischle.

John Campbell, a professor of animal science at the University of Saskatchewan, said the practice of assigning junior workers to administer vaccines, implants and to observe animal health when cattle arrive in the feedlot should be revisited.

“These are some of the most critical moments in the business.”

Barry Robinson of Great Northern Livestock Consulting in Westlock, Alta., agreed.

“These are the jobs where you make money by saving the money. You can buy the right feed right. You can sell cattle right, but if you don’t pay attention to animal health, it costs you big.”

About the author

Michael Raine

Managing Editor, Saskatoon newsroom

explore

Stories from our other publications