Observations on a Proven Implant Program

Perfomance and Quality Grade

Ralgro^®/Revalor^®-S is a proven program. Years of closeout data have shown that it works and works well. "Why mess with something that works?" This is probably the strongest point one can make. The strength of this point was recently demonstrated when Dr. Carl Birkelo (Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health Technical Service Veterinarian) was visiting a feedlot near Greeley, Colo. The feeder was adamant about not messing with his feeding or implant programs. He was satisfied with them, and nickels and dimes on cost of implants were not as important as the potential for messing up the outcome. Predictable, consistent outcomes require predictable, consistent management practices. You can’t afford to bounce back and forth from one program/product to another for small changes in price. There is no study demonstrating that using Synovex^® C upfront will have the same quality grade effect as using Ralgro implants. We have been searching for some time and have come up with no data. No competitor has yet been able to produce any to support their position.

Individuals associated with the feedlot industry have said in private conversations that they don't see Synovex C or Synovex S as a competitive threat to Ralgro implants when carcass quality is important. While we don't have any comparisons with Ralgro implants against Synovex C as an initial implant, we have generated positive data in studies against Synovex S. Various members of the meat industry who recognize the importance of quality grade continue to recommend Ralgro implants as an initial implant in the Ralgro/Revalor-S program. The bottom line is that it makes economic sense for them and for the feedlots that sell cattle based on quality grade considerations. (See below.)

Ralgro implants vs Synovex-S or Components as the Initial Implant

Ralgro implants have proven itself time and time again as the initial implant of choice. There is sufficient research data to support this. Pritchard, (South Dakota University, Brookings) for example, in conducting a three-trial summary on carcass and performance data in steers on feed for approximately 150 days, demonstrated the following:

When one looks at this data it is clear why one would want to use Ralgro implants as an initial implant and forego the Synovex line of products, S or C. The performance numbers, ADG and F/G are virtually a wash, but the % Choice tells the story. When compared to animals implanted with Synovex, an additional 18% of the cattle implanted with Ralgro implants graded Choice or above.

Using these % Choice figures and a $6.00/cwt. HCW hot carcass weight, which is used as a good average Choice/Select spread on a year-in/year-out basis, the following becomes evident:

This equates to a $8.48 per head in extra value the producer receives in Choice/Select premiums when using Ralgro implants. This far outweighs a $0.20 per dose upfront savings with Synovex. No need to be penny wise and dollar foolish.

Undesirable Side Effects

Replacing Ralgro implants with an estrogen-based implant may lead to "estrogen stacking" with subsequent increased undesirable side effects such as riding (bullers) and prolapses. This has been observed in Canadian implant studies.

Although Synovex-C is only half the dose of Synovex-S, it is still an estrogen-based implant. The difference is zeranol vs. estradiol, not simply the dose of estradiol. Ralgro implants are not a weak implant, as competitors like to say. Recent data again demonstrates equal performance to Synovex-S at 75 days as an initial implant. The difference is the implant's growth-promoting compound, zeranol vs. estradiol.

Implant Retention

Ralgro implants are less prone to having post implant complications such as abscesses. The small needle hole and possibly a less reactive implant material are likely factors. Ralgro implant needles also contain a unique bevel that minimizes tissue trauma while maintaining a sharp edge. Consider that even a 1% increase in implant retention over a competitive product would mean an additional $20 value to the owner. That would equate to a 20-cent difference when comparing the actual cost of the implants. In previous studies, Ralgro implanted animals had fewer site reactions, 1.56%, compared to 6.25% for animals implanted with Synovex-S. This 4% difference could be worth as much as $80 on a pen of 100 animals, which amounts to 80 cents per head. The competitive implant could be free and still not be as good as Ralgro implants! These reaction rate differences are real and a point recognized as economically important to the feedyard. The Ralogun^® pellet injector and needle have probably sold more Ralgro implants than we will ever realize.

Ralgro and Ralogun are registered trademarks of Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation.

Revalor-s is a registered trademark of Hoechst Roussel Vet.

Synovex is a registered trademark of Fort Dodge Animal Health.