Implants represent ‘home-run’ technology for feeders

Eric Bailey, assistant professor of animal science at West Texas A&M, considers implants to be a technology unparalleled by any other production management strategies available to beef producers today.

Danielle Schlegel

“Implants are one of the ‘home-run’ technologies or feed additives available in beef,” Bailey says. “They are an essential component of conventional beef production.”

Finishing cattle operations have seen greater return on investment with implants than during the nursing or stocker phases. Managers choosing to incorporate implants into their program should develop one geared specifically for their operation, which begins with understanding how this efficient technology works.

How do implants work?

Implants are small pellets inserted into the middle third on the back of the ear that contain a growth stimulant released over a period of time. These growth stimulants, or hormones, can be either naturally occurring (e.g., estradiol, testosterone and progesterone) or synthetic (e.g., zeranol and trenbolone acetate).

Broadly, these five hormones can be classified into two categories based on the characteristics the compounds affect: estrogenic and androgenic. Estrogenic hormones (estradiol, progesterone and zeranol) affect female characteristics, whereas androgenic hormones (testosterone and trenbolone acetate) affect male characteristics.

The implanted hormones work by stimulating protein synthesis, resulting in increased average daily gains and improved feed efficiency. This is achieved by stimulated intake, increased muscle deposition, stimulated frame growth and decreased fat deposition.

With implants, cattle convert nutrients into protein deposition at greater rates using less input through various physiological processes stimulated by implants.

Administration

Implants are less effective when inserted into the ear incorrectly and can cost $15 to $20 for each improperly placed pellet. Each pellet manufacturer also markets an implant gun specific to each product, and they should be used together to keep defects to a minimum.

Be sure to disinfect the administration site, and always use a sharp needle on a properly working implant gun.

“Processing is usually a ‘get ’em done as quick as possible’ kind of deal,” Bailey says. “If administering implants while processing, take the time to clean the site and properly administer the implant. Injecting implant pellets into a dirty ear can cause a local infection.”

Implants should be injected into the lower third on the back of the ear between the skin and the cartilage. If the pellet is inserted into the cartilage, it will not have access to blood flow and will not be absorbed.

If the pellet is inserted into a blood vessel, the absorption rate will be much higher, resulting in a shorter lifespan of the implant. Also, an implant will lose efficacy if an eartag is put through the pellets.

When injecting the pellets, slowly pull the needle out to allow room for the pellets and to prevent crushing. Once inserted, close the incision site by pressing down on the opening. If the pellet was inserted properly, it should be slightly moveable just under the skin.

“Jamming the pellets into the ear in a hurry can crush them and reduce efficacy of the implant,” Bailey adds. “This is especially important when using the long-acting implants that have upward of 10 pellets per implant. [You] have to be extra careful with those.”

Improper implanting techniques, often associated with crushing of pellets resulting in an increased rate of absorption, can have side effects such as raised tailheads, udder development, bulling/aggressiveness and vaginal and rectal prolapses in addition to a reduced return on investment.

Side effects are rare in proper implanting techniques and often do not cause a shift in economic profits or gain performances.

Implant performances

When compared to non-implanted calves, it is common to see an increase in average daily gains of 15 to 20 percent and an increase of feed efficiency by 6 to 14 percent in implanted feeder cattle. Generally, implants reduce marbling scores by 4 percent; however, the ribeye area increases by 3 to 4 percent.

Hot carcass weights are increased by 5 to 7.5 percent with no increased rate of back fat accumulation.

Most compounds available on the market are developed for a specific sex, age or stage of production, so always read the product label and follow the manufacturer’s instructions prior to use.

“The potency of the implants vary substantially and have various uses,” Bailey says. “On the low-end, zeranol’s (Ralgro) effective life is approximately 75 days. After 75 days, you cease to reap any benefit from the implant and often unimplanted cattle will catch up [in terms of weight gain] to implanted cattle if you do not re-implant.”

Many protocols recommend a lower-potency implant at feedlot entry with a later high-potency combination implant at approximately 100 days prior to slaughter. Protocols are most effective when implemented at the beginning or middle of the production phase.

Implanted cattle should always be on a positive nutrition plane in order for maximum return on investment. Combination hormone compounds and re-implantation strategies often increase performance rates and, as cattle grow, re-implant doses should increase throughout the feeding period.

However, re-implantation strategies are not one-size-fits-all. Bailey notes that since cattle are on feed longer than ever before, it behooves managers to evaluate if it is cost-effective or not to reprocess cattle for re-implanting.

Advancements in implant compounds have recently begun to hit the market. Some new products are now available that have a payout period in excess of 200 days.

“They [long-term payout implants] make an attractive alternative to a second processing of feedlot cattle,” Bailey adds – but with some reservation.

“Efficacy is not a question for the longer payout-period implants if administered correctly. My only concern is that the longer-acting implants have more than 10 pellets, and I want someone skilled doing the implanting because the risk of implant pellet damage is worth considering.”

Each operation is different, and tracking performances can aid in determining which implant compound and protocol works best. Measuring rate of gains over time will help to clue operation managers if chosen implants are improving overall performances, or if different compounds and doses should be used.

Also, diligent records of administration doses and dates are essential to not only performance and payout but also FDA regulations for harvest.

Other considerations

The return on investment of this management strategy is unparalleled in conventionally raised feeder cattle; on average, the overall cost of production is reduced by 10 percent.

“Return on investment is typically 10 to 1,” Bailey says. “You’ll typically see a 10 percent increase in weight gain with little to no increase in feed intake.”

Due to the drastic increase in efficiency, it is recommended that implant strategies be utilized in beef production unless producing under natural or non-hormone-treated cattle programs. However, the profits from programs that don’t allow feed additives or efficiency technologies are often parallel to that of conventionally raised beef.

“The use of implants is not allowed in natural or organic beef programs,” Bailey says. “The premium for natural or organic often outweighs the production efficiencies gained from the home-run technologies/feed additives if cattle are marketed correctly.”

Another consideration for feedlot managers lies in whether or not cattle are being marketed on the grid, as there is a relationship between implant dose and quality grade.

“Implants increase muscle deposition only, meaning they dilute out marbling,” Bailey says. “They don’t decrease marbling, but if you are marketing on a grid with strict requirements for quality grade, there is a plausible scenario where the dollars gained from implanting are lost as discounts on the grid.”

Additionally, implants have been under public scrutiny because they contain hormones, spurring a debate over safety concerns of beef. However, hormones are naturally occurring and are found in higher levels than both implanted and unimplanted beef in other products (Table 1).

Estrogen levels in beef

Without implants, a serving of beef would contain less hormones; however, there would be detrimental economic impacts to producers.

Regardless, implants are a technology that should not be overlooked by any feedlot manager when considering performance and efficiency production strategies. If implants can be used, the bottom line payout can be a home run.