Recently Ft. Dodge released the data from trials conducted in Alberta with their new lower dosage TBA implant. The implant is trade named Synovex-Choice(TM) and is designed for use in stocker cattle or calves. In lighter weight cattle, a lower dosage product will often result in at least as good or better performance than high dosage. In feedlot cattle the lower dosage will result in better grading. Synovex-Plus contains 200 mg. trenbolone acetate and 28 mg. of estradiol. Synovex-Choice contains a half dose (100 mg. trenbolone and 14 mg. estradiol).

The data released by Ft. Dodge was from feedlot trials comparing their products with competing implants in both yearling and calf-feds. As would be expected, full strength TBA implants performed better in the yearlings; whereas cattle implanted with the lower dosage products graded slightly better. Calf-feds showed virtually no difference between full and low dose products in performance, but better grading with the low dosage.

Aside from the usefulness of this data, Ft. Dodge is to be commended for being so open and straight forward about the grading issue. Grading is a touchy subject with implant manufacturers and not all companies have been so candid. In keeping with Ft. Dodge's openness, treatments were included with delayed implanting. (Delayed implanting involves withholding implants for 30-60 days.) This is a protocol that should be credited to Ft. Dodge's Dr. Frank Prouty, who actually developed this concept while technical director of another animal health company.

The delayed implant concept is a revelation that I began recommending to my clients several years ago. The advantages are significant. To begin with, the cattle grade (slightly) better. Although we have all been taught that cattle lay down marbling late in the feeding period, that is apparently not true. Likewise the old advice we received to implant our heaviest dosage product early (to enhance grading) is not only untrue, but counter-productive.

As seen in the performance data, delayed implant cattle will gain substantially less prior to receiving their implant. Afterwards, however, they catch up fast. Indeed, they typically gain almost or equally as much as cattle implanted day one and then reimplanted. (Only the data from the Ft. Dodge yearlings trial is included as the calf-fed trial contained numerous combinations with competing products, and cannot be reproduced in this context.)

To me, the slightly improved marbling (and slightly reduced implant cost and labor) is only icing on the cake. The primary reason I recommend delayed implanting is the greatly reduced incidence rate of bullers. Although there is no scientific evidence that implants affect bulling, I think we all know it does.

Twenty years ago a common problem was crushing implants with the old fashioned plunger type applicators. Education and the newer retractable needle guns reduced the problem substantially, but occasionally we still had some. Delayed implanting doesn't eliminate bulling totally, but clients who practice it have noticed a marked reduction.

Nearly 30 years ago Dr. John Matsushima at Colorado State University conducted the first trials with delayed implanting, but for some reason it never received much publicity. Dr. Prouty has done the industry a great service through commitment and publicity given to what is one of the most useful feedlot management practices to ever come down the road. Hats off to Frank Prouty and Ft. Dodge. ©

Dr. David Porter Price is a cattle and wildlife nutritionist. He has several books and a subscription newsletter that are available by calling his office at (505) 525-1370 or visiting www.cattleandwildlifenutrition.com.