The cattle market is at an all-time high and every pound counts. Implants are an option to increase metabolic and economic efficiency in beef cattle. They are natural or synthetic compounds that produce physiological responses similar to naturally occurring hormones.
Brandon Siefried has worked in multiple sectors of the beef industry, from cow-calf and registered seedstock operations to feedlots. Now, he is a cattle foreman at Midwest Feeders in Ingalls, Kan., a 90,000-head feedyard. He uses implants at all stages of production.
“There’s implants for semi-sucking calves that are usually between 30 and 45 days of age to up to about 400 lb.,” Siefried says. “Then there’s higher growth hormone implants that are for calves in the growing phase or starter phase, that are from let’s say 445 to 900 lb. Then there are true feedlot implants. They go into a commercial feedlot that are what we call finishing implants. They all are growth hormones to better utilize and implement extra feed gain, whether it’s sucking on the cow, running out on native grass, in a drylot situation, and then also in the final feeding phase.”
Siefried has used implants at every stage of the industry and notes all implants are placed in the base of the animal’s ear.
“There’s several different types of implants,” Siefried explains. “There are positives and negatives, but the positives outweigh the negatives in my opinion. We are up against the scale where every pound matters. This is a way to achieve some of that without the extra cost of too many inputs. The outcome outweighs the input costs.”
The Economics of “Pushing the Bar”
Implants vary in price, which is dependent on dose amount and brand. Some implants are slower releasing than others and stay in the animal longer. Siefried added that it depends on what your end goal is.
“There is a large dose that I’m looking at right now; one is $900 for 100 doses and the other one is $350 for 100 doses,” he says. “It’s also the level of the growth hormones that we are putting into those cattle. It can swing rather large, but you have advantages off of both. It’s just whether you’re going to be in the middle or if you want to be minimal, or if you want to push the bar as far as you can.”
Other costs to consider are labor costs if inserting the implants. FDA-approved implants also require a prescription from a veterinarian. Siefried recommends consulting your ranch veterinarian, researching the options to choose what best fits your operation.
“The biggest thing is we are paid by a pound per head basis, and we are just adding value for every extra pound that we can gain,” Siefried says. “Especially in the beef industry today, inputs are what they are, but the substantial value that you receive off of those inputs is magnifying our potential profit.”
Debunking the Estrogen Myth: Beef vs. Ice Cream
Extension Beef Cattle Nutrition Specialist at Oklahoma State University Paul Beck says growth promoting implants are among the safest technologies used in beef cattle production.
“Estrogen does not increase appreciably in implanted beef cattle,” Beck says. “Beef from steers and heifers fed for slaughter have a very low level of estrogenic activity, regardless of implant status. In fact, ice cream contains 272 times more estrogen than implanted beef.”
He adds that common grain- and vegetable-sourced foods such as peas, wheat germ and cabbage have 180 to 1,000 times the estrogenic activity of implanted beef. Natural estrogen production in humans is much higher than many expect; a pregnant female produces 90,000,000 nanograms of estrogen/day, a non-pregnant adult female 5,000,000 nanograms of estrogen/day, an adult male 100,000 nanograms of estrogen/day and a pre-pubertal child 40,000 nanograms of estrogen/day.
“The safety of growth promoting implants is certain,” Beck says. “The safety of implants is assured when FDA-approved products are used according to their labels. History and several organizations including, but not limited to, FDA, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have concluded the use of implants in beef production poses no safety risk to consumers.”
Nutrition First: Implants are Not a Substitute for Feed
Kansas State University Beef Cattle Nutritionist Phillip Lancaster says implants have been around a long time, and that there is a lot of data to support how well they work.
“If you’re not using growth-promoting implants, you’re going to have smaller carcasses,” he says on the Beef Cattle Institute’s Cattle Chat podcast. “You need to be compensated for that, and typically that means about a 15% premium.”
However, implants are not a substitute for poor nutrition and won’t perform adequately in animals lacking quality nutrition.
“Cattle still need to be on an adequate plane of nutrition to see the full benefit,” Lancaster says.
Beck says a negative to implanted cattle is a decrease in marbling and that implants can reduce the percentage of USDA Choice carcasses by 2% to 24% depending on the implant products used.
Ultimately, all sources agreed that producers should evaluate their goals when deciding whether to use implants.
