 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
Producers who use proper implanting techniques can reap the benefits of implanting -- increased average daily gain (ADG) and feed efficiency -- while those who put sanitation to the side may not be so fortunate. A recent Kansas State University study shows that average daily gain and feed efficiency of feeder heifers were reduced 8.9 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively, over a 91-day feeding period for cattle with abscessed implants compared to cattle with normal implants. "Abscessed implants reduced economic return by $17.70 per head," Dr. Mark Spire of Kansas State University revealed, adding that this figure is based on a 650-lb. heifer price of $74/hundredweight and a ration cost of $120 per ton. "This $17.70 per head is a significant difference, and a good reason to follow proper implant protocol. "Implanting is one area where producers can correct improper techniques and quickly realize a return on their investment." Dr. Spire explains that growth-promoting implants that combine strong estrogen and an androgen are reported to boost average daily gain for feeder heifers by 14.8 percent and feed efficiency by 7.5 percent. Unfortunately, some heifers fall short of this potential increase because of problem implants. Feedlot implant audits conducted by Fort Dodge Animal Health for 1996 and 1997 found that 6.0 percent of cattle implanted encounter problems such as abscessation following implant placement, missing implants or improperly placed implants. Specific groups of cattle can have problem implants exceeding 30 percent, with abscesses accounting for more than half of the problems. The recent K-State study conducted by Dr. Spire and three other researchers involved 72 British crossbred heifers weighing 400-550 lbs. This study focused on determining if the quality of implant placement interfered with animal performance. One group of heifers received a Synovex(r)H implant in an ear washed with a brush saturated with Nolvasan(r) solution diluted in water. The second group received a Synovex(r)H implant in an ear to which a slurry of water and cattle feces had been applied immediately prior to and after implanting. Both groups were fed a sorghum silage plus dry rolled corn ration once per day for 91 days. At the end of the feeding period, the heifers that had been properly implanted posted an ADG of 3.18 lbs. while the heifers with abscessed implants were at 2.92 lbs. per day. The difference in feed conversion was 5.62 vs. 6.13 in favor of the properly implanted heifers. "The difference in ADG can be erased by implementing Quality Assurance," Dr. Spire relates. "Cattlemen should learn how to implant cattle properly so they can take full advantage of implants. This covers sanitation of equipment and the ear, using the right equipment and placing the implant. All are simple steps and easy to accomplish -- when you know the protocol." Dr. Frank Prouty, Director of Technical Services for Fort Dodge Animal Health, agrees with Spire, adding that cattlemen who want to learn proper procedures can turn to Fort Dodge Animal Health's Profit Improvement Program (PIP). This program involves continued training of implanting personnel at the cattle production location, monitoring of cattle to evaluate the quality of the implanting process and reporting results to the cattle manager or owner. "Fort Dodge Animal Health realizes the challenges cattlemen face and is committed to Quality Assurance programs to improve the profitability of cattlemen," Prouty summarizes. "Implants were designed to help cattlemen increase profits, and cattlemen should take the necessary steps to maximize their return." |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
||||