1. One of the most beneficial practices available in the beef industry is the use
of growth promoting implants to safely and efficiently increase weight
gain. Implants contain natural or synthetic anabolic compounds that
produce physiological responses in the animal, similar to natural hormones.
By placing implants under the skin on the back of the ear, gain and
efficiency will be improved in suckling calves, stockers and feedlot cattle.
Extensive research has been conducted on the use of implants in the stocker
and feedlot sector, however research findings on implants in suckling
calves are less common. Nonetheless, available research reviews have
documented implants in suckling calves to increase average daily gain by 5
– 6 % over un-implanted controls. Despite the positive effect of implants
on weight gain in suckling calves, only 33 percent of cow calf producers in
the United States currently use this practice. For this reason, the objective
of this demonstration was to display how implants could be utilized
efficiently in a commercial cow calf production system to improve suckling
calf weight gain.
Abstract
Objectives
Results
48 Angus Cross Spring Born Pairs were utilized in this demonstration.
Steers and Heifers (age 45-150 d) were randomly allotted by sex to one of
two treatment groups; implant or control.
To demonstrate ease of implanting and coordination with current producer
practice, calves received implants in sync with calf hood vaccinations, de-
wormer and castration procedures.
Calves were turned back out with dam to graze summer native pastures for
the remaining treatment period.
Final weights were taken on day 114.
Data was collected and sorted to represent weight gained by the implanted
calves vs non-implanted calves.
2.14
2.18
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
ADG
Steer Performance
Materials and Methods
In the current study, implanting suckling calves did not significantly affect
weight gain.
Other studies have also shown inconsistent responses when suckling calves
were implanted (Mader et. al 1988; Simms et. al 1988).
Past research shows implanted calves on a higher plane of nutrition out
perform implanted calves consuming lower nutrient feed (Prichard et. al
1989; Gadberry, 2015).
An Oklahoma State study indicated diminished forage quality had a negative
effect on the weight gain response in implanted calves (Gill et. Al 1986).
In the current trial, poor forage quality may have led to decreased milk
production in cows causing substandard weight gains in implanted calves.
The wide range in age of calves in addition to low numbers (n=48) may have
decreased strength of the implant in the overall demonstration.
By coordinating implants with current producer practice, only one added step
was added to producers current springtime working procedure. This
decreased calf stress and reduced cost of extra trips through the chute.
More research is suggested to quantify the impact of forage quality on
implant response in suckling calves.
Implants In Suckling Calves
C. Dewitt, D. Zook
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Services
2.26
2.21
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
ADG
Heifer Performance
Implanted Non-Implanted
Discussion and Implications
Suckling calf ADG was not affected by calf hood
implants:
Steers: ADG (2.14 vs 2.18 lb.; P < 0.83)
Heifers: ADG (2.26 vs. 2.21 lb.; P < 0.68)
Gadberry, S. (2015) Growth Implants for Suckling and Growing Beef Cattle. Retrieved from
http://www.uaex.edu/publications/pdf/FSA-3019.pdf
Gill, D. R., H. R. Spires, F. E. Bates, B. L. Peverly, and K. S. Lusby. 1986. Response of fall-born calves to progesterone-
estradiol benzoate implants and reimplants. J Anim. Sci. 62:37-41
Mader, T., J. M. Dahlquist, M. H. Sindt, R. A. Stock, and T. J. Klopfenstein. 1994. Effect of sequential implanting with
Synovex on steer and heifer performance. J. Anim. Sci. 61:546-551
Prichard, D.L., D. D. Hargrove, T.A. Olson, and T. T. Marshall. 1989. Effects of creep feeding, zeranol implants and
breed type on beef production: 1. cow and calf performance. J. Anim. Sci. 67:609-616.
Selk, G. (1997). Implants for suckling steer and heifers calves and potential replacement heifers. Retrieved from
http://beefextension.com/proceedings/implant_97/97-7.pdf
Simms, D. D., T. B. Goehring, R. T. Brandt, Jr., G. L. Kuhl, J. J. Higgins, S. b. Laudert, and R. W. Lee. 1998. Effect of
sequential implanting with zeranol on steer lifetime performances. J. Anim. Sci. 66:2736-2741
Stewart, L. (2013). Implanting Beef Cattle. Retrieved from
http://extension.uga.edu/publications/files/pdf/B%201302_3.PDF
1. Evaluate the impact of implants on the performance of suckling calves
2. Develop a realistic protocol to incorporate into current management
practices.
References
