Feed Lot Magazine Online, Implanting Calves Makes Sense -- and Money

Looking for a sure and simple way to make more money on your calves? Implanting could be the answer.

"There really are no negatives to implanting," says Kevin DeHaan, Ph.D., VetLife technical service team leader.

But there are profitable benefits to it. "The greatest benefit is enhanced muscle growth and improvement in feed efficiency from 5 to 15 percent," says Terry Mader, Ph.D., professor at the University of Nebraska. "Implanting calves on cows increases weaning weights by about 20 pounds," according to Don Gill, Ph.D., professor at Oklahoma State. "If I were in the business of raising weaning calves, I don't see how I could afford not to implant. The return on it is huge."

"It's an $18 to $20 return on investment," adds Tom Troxel, Ph.D., extension beef cattle specialist at the University of Arkansas. "If a producer has 25 calves, and they gain an extra 20 pounds each, that's 500 more pounds. It's like getting a whole extra calf."

A calf can benefit from implanting at any time in its life. "Research says implanting at birth is beneficial; it's better than not doing it at all," advises DeHaan. "But the best time is when the calf is around 11/2 to two months old. At that time, the animal is best suited to take advantage of the implant."

That's because the implant should be at work in the calf during its highest production periods; the best returns will be realized that way. "It's a percentage response," Gill says. "Twenty percent of a good gain is worth a lot of money."

For heifer calves, which may become your replacement heifers, the common practice is to implant them just once before weaning, and wait to do it until they're at least 45 days old. Be sure to use a product approved for replacement heifers in pre-weaning stages. This will help prevent any adverse effects on their reproductive capabilities.

If small and medium-sized producers hesitate to implant because of a lack of facilities, experts suggest that they do the math. "There's a trade-off. If you have 200 or 300 head, and you're losing $20 a head by not implanting, then you have to re-evaluate in terms of what it's costing you," Mader explains. It might be worthwhile to set up the facilities, or consider implanting when cattle are being processed anyway. "Some producers who tag at birth will go ahead and implant then," Troxel says. "Others might wait, maybe until they are castrating bull calves."

Those situations could increase the challenge of insuring sanitary conditions for the implanting procedure. "Cleanliness is really important," DeHaan says. "What happens is that people are implanting out in the field where they can't keep things clean." Research shows an average 8 percent defect rate in implant applications. The majority of those treatment failures are from abscesses and infections at the implant site. Ranchers, especially, may not know that they have this problem since they don't see their cattle every day, but research shows that they almost certainly lose part of their investment to implant defects.

"It's hard to maintain a clean environment," Mader says. "Anything we can do to improve opportunity for the product to be used at its full potential is a plus. If we can minimize any bacterial infections, that's certainly a benefit." Component E-C with Tylan, made by VetLife, is an implant that includes a localized antibacterial, Tylan. According to research, Tylan is effective in preventing implant-site infections.

And that makes implanting an even better bet. "Of all the production techniques we use, the economic return on the implant is the best," Gill says. "The question is: can you afford not to implant?"