Economics of Implanting Suckling Calves

Compiled from an educational bulletin by Clay P. Mathis, Extension Livestock Specialist, New Mexico State University

Implanting growth promotants in suckling steer and heifer calves at branding can significantly enhance average daily gain between branding and weaning, improving the profitability of a ranching operation. However, it is important to use only products labeled for use in suckling beef calves. Special consideration also must be given to implant strategies for replacement heifers. However, reduced reproductive performance in replacement heifers implanted only once between 1 and 3 months of age is minor and generally is offset by improved weaning weights among heifers marketed at weaning.

New products and technologies are continually introduced to cow-calf producers. In general, most products or new technologies require an increase in input with the expectation of an improvement in animal performance that will return an increase in cash flow above the cost of implementing the new technology.

Growth implants were first approved for beef cattle in the 1950s. Since that time a great deal of research has created growth-promoting products that yield consistent responses and are easy to use. To be effective, implants must be properly deposited in the mid-ear site between the skin and ear cartilage according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

Although growth implants have been demonstrated to be effective and profitable technologies, adoption has been limited. A review of research by G. Selk of Oklahoma State University in 1997 concludes that the use of growth-promoting implants in suckling beef calves increases average daily gain (ADG) by 0.1 pound/day in steers and by 0.12 to 0.14 pound/day in heifers from implanting to weaning.

Nevertheless, 1997 data from the National Animal Health Monitoring System indicates that only 14.3 percent of all cow-calf operations nationwide implant suckling calves. However, among operations with more than 300 cows, 55.4 percent implant suckling calves. Even so, this represents a huge loss of opportunity for increased returns among producers who do not implant suckling calves.

Deciding to implant suckling calves with growth-promoting implants almost always makes good economic sense, as long as products are used according to their label.

For example, we can assume that the additional cost of implanting calves at branding is about $1 (the increase in labor is minimal). The average weight and sale price of all steer and bull calves sold from New Mexico ranches participating in the Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) program between 1991 and 1999 were 560 pounds and $79/cwt.

For the purpose of this example, let's consider a group of nonimplanted calves that weigh 550 pounds at weaning. If these steer calves were implanted at branding and gained an additional 0.1 pound/head/day from branding (60 days of age) to weaning (210 days of age), then they would weigh 15 pounds more per head at weaning (210 days - 60 days = 150 days x 0.1 pound/day increase in ADG = 15 pounds). Therefore, the average weaning weight would be 565 pounds.

If these implanted calves sold for $78/cwt and would have sold for $79/cwt if they were 15 pounds lighter (nonimplanted), then the implanted calves would have returned $440.70/head versus only $434.50/head if they were not implanted. Implanting would have been worth $6.20 per head less approximately $1 for the cost of the implant a net gain of $5.20/head.

To carry this example a step further, let's assume that all steer and heifer calves are marketed at weaning and that the enhancement in performance response to growth implants in the heifers is equal to that of the steers. Therefore, we can calculate a net profit of $5 per cow [$5.20/weaned calf x 96.2 percent (average calf survival from birth to weaning from SPA data)]. Average net income for New Mexico ranches participating in the SPA program from 1991 to 1999 is $6.09 per cow. If we add $5 to $6.09, the net profit would be $11.09 an 82 percent increase in net income per cow.

Clearly, implanting makes good economic sense in this example.

Some research evaluating the use of growth promotants in suckling replacement heifers has generated concern regarding the future reproductive performance of implanted replacement females. These findings create a dilemma because it is not always possible to determine at branding which females will become replacements, so in many cases none of the suckling heifers are implanted. This results in a lost opportunity to improve ADG in heifers that will be marketed at weaning.

Implanting all heifers at 1 to 3 months of age typically improves weaning weights on all heifers, yet the negative effects of implanting on reproductive performance will be minimal or nonexistent. However, never implant replacement heifers before 1 month or after 3 months of age.