The effect of anabolic implants on intramuscular lipid deposition in finished beef cattle.Anaholic Dale Anabolic implants beef cattle, C. Although no special ration considerations are needed for maximal implant performance, it is important to feed a balanced high quality ration. All approved feed medicine for testosterone used in an approved manner are appropriate to consider in a feeding anabolic implants beef cattle for implanted cattle. Performance improvements associated with approved feed medications are additive to the expected performance improvements from implants. Using growth promoting implants is one of the most cost effective methods of enhancing cattle gain and efficiency of gain. Implants enhance protein deposition while diminishing fat accretion.
Ralgro Implants for Beef Cattle for Animal Use - jmhw.info
Implants contain natural or synthetic anabolic compounds that produce physiological responses in the animal, similar to natural hormones. Implants are typically made of a powder that is compressed into a small pellet. Each type or brand of implant has a specific applicator, referred to as an implant gun, which is used to properly administer the implant. Current Use of Implants Implants have a long history of use in the beef cattle industry.
The first commercial implant was introduced in Since that time, the use of implants has been widely adopted by the cattle feeding and stocker sectors of the beef industry. Two recent Oklahoma studies surveyed producers who received the Beef Cattle Manual Johnson, and Vestal et al. Thirty-seven percent of cow-calf producers with larger operations more than cows indicated they implanted their steer calves, while only 9 percent of cow-calf producers with smaller operations fewer than cows implanted their steer calves Vestal et al.
Approximately 60 percent of stocker producers implant their cattle Johnson, Data from the National Stocker Survey showed that Types of Implants The compounds used in implants fall into two basic categories. Estrogenic compounds mimic the effects of the naturally occurring hormone estrogen. Estradiol benzoate, estradiol beta and zeranol are each estrogenic compounds. Alternatively, androgenic compounds mimic the effects of the naturally occurring hormone testosterone. Testosterone propionate and trenbalone acetate TBA are the principal androgenic compounds used in implants.
Synthetic progesterone is also used in implants; however, its effect on the animal is less pronounced than the other two types of compounds.
Table 1 has a listing of compound combinations and dosages supplied in commercially available implant products. All implants are designed to release the compounds slowly through time into the bloodstream of the animal. Different implants are formulated to provide different lengths of time for all of the compounds to be released.
Label claims of payout range from 60 days to days. Factors that affect payout include formulation of the implant, proper administration of the implant, and blood flow to the ear.
Implants cleared for use in nursing calves contain a lower dose of the active ingredient compared to products cleared for use in older cattle. These implants are typically administered when the calves are between two months and four months of age. Research has shown that implants given during the suckling phase will increase average daily gain ADG of steer calves by approximately 0.
Response in heifers is slightly lower. Most calf implants are designed for payout in approximately days to days. In some circumstances, the suckling period is long enough that reimplanting would be appropriate. The additional implant did not appear to have as much effect as the initial implant.
Calves should be 30 days to 45 days old before they are implanted. Bull calves intended for breeding should not be implanted. Bull calves not intended for breeding should be castrated at the time of implanting, as one effect of the implant is possible inhibited scrotal development, which makes later castration more difficult.
Stocker Calves Calves that are weaned and placed on grass or small grain pastures for a period of time before finishing in a feedlot are referred to as stocker calves. There are several implants available for stocker calves Table 1.
Implant research trials have shown an improvement in the ADG of stocker cattle from 8 percent to 20 percent. Numerous trials indicate that producers can expect a 10 percent to 15 percent 0. These studies were conducted through various lengths of time, but the average was approximately days, which is a typical stocker grazing period.
Research results are inconclusive concerning the value of one type of compound over the others. ASNITable1 Payout for stocker implants is generally in the range of 80 to days, although several products are available with much longer payout periods. Reimplanting stockers should be considered when grazing periods are longer than days, the implant label indicates a payout period of less than days, and expected ADG during the second phase of the grazing period is moderate or high.
Reimplanting in these situations has produced 4 percent to 6 percent improvement in ADG over a single implant. Alternatively, implants designed for a longer payout time may be used as the initial and only implant to provide an active implant through a long grazing season.
This would eliminate the need to gather and process the animals at the midpoint of the grazing season. Factors affecting stocker response to implants are numerous and include sex, weight, genetic gain potential, forage availability, diet quality, supplementation and environmental conditions. Research has shown that as ADG of nonimplanted controls increases due to pasture quality or other factors , the response to an implant also increases.
No adverse effects have been documented from implanting cattle that gain at very low rates. Research has indicated that responses to implants, supplementation and ionophores are percent additive in stocker cattle, and there may be a slight synergistic relationship. Full benefit should be expected from both the implant and the supplement program if both are used in stocker cattle.
Feedlot Cattle Implants are used extensively by the feeding industry in the U. The finishing period can range from days to days. A single implant may improve ADG by 0. Feed conversion may be improved by 0. Aggressive high anabolic concentration feedlot implant programs can result in up to a 21 percent improvement in daily gain and an improvement in feed conversion up to 11 percent.
This increased efficiency and weight gain produces a significant economic return. An implant program for finishing cattle must evaluate numerous factors, including decisions concerning timing of implant, ingredient of implant and number of implant times. Implants can have pronounced effects upon carcass characteristics of cattle. In general, when cattle are fed the same number of days, implants improve carcass weight and ribeye area, while decreasing marbling scores.
With these circumstances, implants may reduce the percentage of cattle grading at least USDA Choice by 2 percent to 24 percent. Type of implant, gender and genotype of the animal all influence these responses. However, if cattle are harvested at constant back fat thickness, implants may have little to no impact on quality grade.
For a complete review of feedlot implant effects, see Duckett et al. Nursing Bull Calves versus Nursing Steer Calves Many producers follow the practice of leaving bull calves intact until weaning rather than castrating them.
The idea is that natural hormones produced in the testicles increase ADG and weaning weight of the calves. Numerous research trials have shown that implanted steer calves gain at a rate equal to, or greater than, bull calves.
Castrating bulls as small calves, as opposed to when they are older, reduces overall stress on the calf. Producers wanting to maximize the value of male calves at weaning should consider early castration at birth or at two months to four months of age and use an implant approved for nursing calves. Lifetime Implanting Strategies In the modern beef industry, it is fairly common for cattle to receive three or more implants during their lifetime.
For producers who operate in only one segment of the industry, the implant decision is simple. However, for producers who retain ownership of an animal through two or more phases and market cattle on a carcass merit price grid, implant decisions become more complex. It is possible that implants administered in one phase can have carryover effects in subsequent phases, however in many studies, this carryover effect has not materialized Reuter and Beck, Implants approved for suckling calves are less potent than those approved for stockers, which are less potent than many feedlot implants.
A strategy to maximize lifetime gain of the animal while minimizing deleterious effects on carcass quality and animal behavior is an implant program using increasingly potent implants.
During the suckling phase, a low potency implant will be used, followed by one or two moderate implants in the growing phase, followed by a moderate implant upon placement in the feed yard, and then a high potency implant 80 days to days before slaughter.
Producers who retain ownership of animals through more than one production phase should evaluate their overall implant program for the way they are marketing their cattle. Factors to consider are the feed cost, the base value of additional carcass weight, the Choice-Select spread and the potential value of marketing cattle into specialty, non-hormone treated cattle NHTC programs.
Heifers implanted immediately at birth, following weaning or multiple times prior to weaning had significantly lower conception rates compared to heifers receiving a single implant prior to weaning. Most producers should be able to identify potential replacements heifers at weaning.
The producer can then implant the stocker heifers to improve gain and not implant the heifers intended for breeding. See Chapter 29 for a more thorough discussion of implanting replacement heifers. Economics Implants are one of the most cost-effective technologies available to cattle producers.
Implant Location The only approved implantation site for all brands of implants is subcutaneously in the middle one-third of the back of the ear. The implant must not be closer to the head than the edge of the auricular cartilage ring farthest from the head. The procedure to insert the implant should be done under conditions as sanitary as possible.
Cleaning the ear, keeping equipment clean, and using a sharp needle are all recommended. Problems with ear abscesses are the most common cause of implant defects and are usually related to poor sanitation while implanting.
Proper animal restraint makes the implanting placement more accurate and the procedure safer for the handlers. Figure 1 shows the correct location. Implanting Procedure A qualified and trained individual should be assigned the task of implanting. Employing the following steps will greatly diminish the incidence of implanting errors, such as abscesses, crushed pellets or missing implants.
Achieving an active, undamaged uncontaminated implant in each calf is the goal. Speed will come with practice; it is better to do it right the first time than to have to go back and fix mistakes. Read the label for all animal health products. Ensure the correct dosage, location and procedures are followed. Ensure the product is labeled for use in the class of animal to which it is being administered. Any deviation from label directions carries the potential for stiff legal penalties and should be directed by a licensed veterinarian Figure 2.
Obtain all of the necessary equipment to maintain sanitation. A tray and large sponge soaked in a disinfectant should be used to store the implant applicator between uses. An extra needle for the applicator should be available in case the needle becomes dull, burred, bent or broken. A clean table out of the way of flying debris should be used to store the applicator and implants between uses Figure 2. Become familiar with the operation of the implant applicator.