Chris Richards, PhD Beef Cattle Extension Specialist Oklahoma State University

Transcription

1 Chris Richards, PhD Beef Cattle Extension Specialist Oklahoma State University

2 What are implants? Needle insertion site Middle one-third Implant site Cartilage ring Natural or synthetic anabolic compounds Manufactured in slow release systems Placed in back of ear under skin Enhance the efficiency and growth of cattle Effective days: 70 to 350, most 100 to 120

3 Compounds Used Estrogenic Estradiol benzoate Estradiol 17-beta Zeranol Androgenic Testosterone propionate Trenbalone acetate (TBA) Synthetic progesterone

4 Times to implant Nursing At branding with vaccinations and deworming 30 or 45 days to 4 months > 400 lb If weaning at least 45 days or backgrounding 2 to 6 weeks prior to weaning Weaning Tie to brand, vaccinate, deworm 14 days post weaning Stocker phase Finishing Arrival Final diet Up to ~70 pre harvest

5

6

7 Expected Response from Implants: Nursing Calves Review of 50 studies comparing non-implanted suckling steers to implanted suckling steers: lb/d Review of 8 studies comparing non-implanted suckling heifers to implanted suckling heifers: lb/d Selk, 1997

8 Heifers Heifers can be implanted one time between 45 DOA and weaning with no adverse effects on replacements Alternative program Implant heifers born during 2 nd half of the calving season

9 Stockers 8-20% improvement Average10-15% 0.18 to 0.27 lb per day

10 Feedlot 0.35 lb/d steers 0.25 lb/d heifers Improve feed efficiency 0.5 lb/lb gain Aggressive programs 21% improvement in gain 11% improvement in feed conversion If harvested at same wt Increase carcass wt & Rib eye area Decreases marbling scores Reduced Ch by 2-24%

11 Percent of Operations Current Use of Implants Cow/Calf National Animal Health Monitoring System

12 Percentage Lots Implanting / Not Implanting Superior Livestock, Implant No Implant '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13 Source: Modified from King, Seeger, et al. JAVMA,2006, 2011

13 Estrogenic Activity of Several Food (3 0z or 85 gram serving) Common Foods Estrogenic Activity (nanograms of estrogen) Beef from non-implanted cattle 1.4 Beef from implanted cattle 1.9 Milk 11.1 Beef from pregnant cow 119 Potatoes 225 Peas 340 Ice cream 510 Eggs 2,635 Wheat Germ 3,400 Soybean Oil 168,000 Human estrogen production (nanograms / day) Girls 54,000 Boys 41,500 Non-pregnant woman 480,000 Adult Male 136,000

14 How many servings of implanted beef do you have to consume to equal a serving of potatoes? (3 oz servings) A) 12 (4 lbs) B) 48 (12 lbs) C) 72 (18 lbs) D) 120 (30 lbs) E) 240 (60 lbs)

15 So Why the Decline? Increased hormones in beef Consumers want non-implanted beef

16 Percent of Operations Current Use of Implants Finishing and Stocker Finishing Large Stocker Small Stocker Cattle Fax

17 Natural and Organic Beef Sales Pounds Dollars 5% Other 6% Other 95% Natural and Organic 94% Natural and Organic Source: FreshLook Marketing Data 13 weeks ending 12/28/14.

18 So Why the Decline? Increased hormones in beef Consumers want non-implanted beef Gaining premiums / avoiding discounts

19 Price Advantage for Not Implanting Superior Livestock, $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 -$0.10 -$0.20 -$0.30 -$0.40 -$0.50 -$ No Implant Source: Modified from King, Seeger, et al. JAVMA,2006, 2011

20 So Why the Decline? Increased hormones in beef Consumers want non-implanted beef Gaining premiums / avoiding discounts Implanting skills have declined or lost

21 Training opportunity On Farm implants can be applied to individual animals Calves can be managed as a single group Pair calves by sex, weight, and birthdate Implant half of the calves

22 So Why the Decline? Increased hormones in beef Consumers want non-implanted beef Gaining premiums / avoiding discounts Implanting skills have declined or lost They do not work anymore

23 Summer Gain (lb) 2014 Implant Study, OSU Cow/Calf lbs more to market 321 Summer Gain Weaning Weight P<0.01 N R P<0.01

24 Response to Ralgro (lb/d) Implant response over control ADG Control ADG (lb) Summary of 26 Studies from

25 Oklahoma example What are the production and economic differences between natural and traditional beef production?

26 ADG, LB/D Implants on Pasture ADG lb/d - 18 % 2.28 Non-Implanted 2.69 Implanted

27 Lb Feedlot System: Overall Feedlot 3.6% Performance % % Overall DMI Overall ADG Overall F/G Natural Conventional

28 Lb 950 System Effect: Hot Carcass Weight % 137 lbs 798 Natural Conventional Hot Carcass Weight

29 USDA Yield Grade, % System Effect: USDA Yield Grade Distribution YG 1 YG 2 YG 3 YG 4-5 Natural Conventional

30 $/steer Net Return W/O premiums, $/steer $53.45b SEM = $ $ ($150.24)a Natural Conventional

31 Implications Natural type programs Calf producers would need to receive ~10 lbs. worth of premium Stockers would need to receive ~45 lbs. worth of premium plus any cost of program enrolment Finished cattle can be produced with ~$200 of premiums Higher quality grade distribution Feeds approximately 7.6 US Citizens for 1 year Technology used 44 lbs more gain on pasture 119 lbs more feed resulted in 126 lbs more weight gain 135 pound of carcass advantage Better YG distribution

32 So Why the Decline? Increased hormones in beef Consumers want non-implanted beef Gaining premiums / avoiding discounts Implanting skills have declined or lost They do not work anymore Natural is good for the environment

33 Implications: Technology Technology in 1 Steer Feeds 1 1/4 more US Citizen for 1 year 17% increase

34 Historical context Production efficiency: More with less -16% -18% -33% -12% -19% -30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Capper, 2011 JAS 89:

35

36 Sustainablebeef.org

37 Producer Choice Economics Consumer Choice Ability / willingness to pay Downstream impacts

38 Chris Richards