Implants and performance of stocker calves

Many of the best and most up-to-date cattle producers in Arkansas are involved with raising stocker cattle. Producers who have no problem with investing $10 to $15 per calf for the  latest antibiotic to reduce mortality losses forgo the $1 to $2 per calf investment in growth-promoting implants for theircattle. One reason for this may be that producers can easily track sick pulls and death losses associated with respiratory disease but may not be able to see the 10 to 15 percent increase in performance gained from use of implants. Another possible reason may be the belief that use of implants prior to the finishing phase will either decrease performance during finishing, reduce carcass quality or both. Over the last three years, we have conducted research studies determining the benefits of implants pre-finishing and tracking the effects of pre-finishing implants through finishing and slaughter.

In one study, steers were placed on wheat pasture at the University of Arkansas Livestock and Forestry Branch Station at Batesville either after receiving an implant or were not implanted. Also, cattle in separate pastures were offered a non-medicated mineral, a mineral medicated with Rumensin or pressed protein blocks medicated with Rumensin. Steers fed the non-medicated mineral that did not receive an implant gained over 2.3 pounds per day, which is excellent performance for grazing steers. But the implanted steers fed the non-medicated mineral gained 2.7 pounds per day, an increase of 0.4 pound per day! While implanted steers fed the medicated mineral and blocks gained 0.55 pound more per day than steers fed the non-medicated mineral that did not receive an implant. Over a 100-day grazing period, supplying an ionophore and an implant would increase body weight gains by 55 pounds.

In another study conducted at both the University of Arkansas Livestock and Forestry Branch Station at Batesville and Southwest Research and Extension Center at Hope, steers were implanted upon arrival at the receiving pens, following delays of 14 and 28 days, or were not implanted. Implanting during the receiving period did not affect animal performance or animal health during the receiving period, but implants did increase gains while steers grazed cool-season annual pastures (wheat pasture at LFRS and rye or oat pasture at SWREC). Implanting increased overall average daily gain by 0.3 pound per day, but during the last 28-day grazing period, steers implanted on arrival gained less than steers implanted either on day 14 or 28 of receiving. During-receiving energy is likely being used by steers to combat stress and enhance immune function, as opposed to increasing performance in response to implants. While grazing steers were able to respond to implants by increasing weight gain, early implants were playing out before the end of the grazing season.

1. Post-tornado composting a solution for disposal of dead livestock
2. Cornell genetic testing process cuts cost by up to 75 percent
3. Angus Foundation receives $28,500 from “The Card Challenge”
4. Commentary: In praise of animal foods
5. 100K Pathogen Genome Project maps first genomes
6. Beef exports depend on quality reputation

1. Michigan hay buyers should plan purchases early
2. New animal identification rules aid disease traceability
3. Seven jobs more dangerous than farming
4. Survey reveals most Americans in favor of COOL
5. Post-tornado composting a solution for disposal of dead livestock
6. Drought losses in Oklahoma top $400 million for 2012

1. Meat and climate change: How significant is the impact?
2. BeefTalk: How do we get the next generation to raise beef?
3. Commentary: GMOs: How do I hate thee?
4. Survey reveals most Americans in favor of COOL
5. Farm bill and immigration reform action needed
6. Boxed beef hits record highs, cattle weak to lower