Synovex or ralgro
- Thread starter dt34715
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
J&D Cattle
Well-known member
I'm not answering your question but you can't ralgro around here. Buddy had to use synovex this weekend.
Son of Butch
Well-known member
Ralgro on manufacturer back order and won't be back into production until sometime next year.
Therefore synovex is clearly the better choice.
Therefore synovex is clearly the better choice.
NolanCountyAG
Well-known member
J&D Cattle":11nal5n3 said:
Why not?
Lucky_P
Well-known member
As stated, Ralgro not available, and has not been for some time.
We switched over to Compudose implants.
We switched over to Compudose implants.
bird dog
Well-known member
The Ralgro rep told me there was a manufacturing problem and it would not be available until mid ear 2018. I think something is fishy. No way a big company like Merck would let a popular product go that long without some supply. I think they just want you to go to another one of their own products like Revelor.
Stocker Steve
Well-known member
Ralgro is an old product. I am sure there are better ones out there. I know they were trying to switch users years ago. Sounds like that is happening.
The studies I remember did not show an implant benefit unless the cattle had a high ADG. What is the current thinking?
The studies I remember did not show an implant benefit unless the cattle had a high ADG. What is the current thinking?
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
SS - here's an article I put in one of my newsletters last year. Taken out of Drovers CattleNetwork:
Putting money in the bank by implanting calves
By Warren Rusche iGrow May 17, 2016
If someone was offering a deal promising that for every $1 invested there would be a $25 payoff four to six months later, how many takers would there be? Sounds too good to be true, but that is exactly the payoff from using implants on nursing calves this year.
Why use growth promoting implants?
Growth promoting implants are one of the most proven and effective technologies available to beef producers. As long as the calf can obtain sufficient nutrients to support the extra growth, using one of the approved implants (Component E-C, Ralgro, or Synovex-C) should result in an additional 20 to 30 more pounds at weaning. Suppose a non-implanted calf that weighs 500 pounds is worth $1.75 per pound this fall, or $875 per head. Implanting would result in a calf weighing 525 pounds at $1.72 per pound (10 cent slide per hundred pounds), or $903 per head. Considering that calf values will likely be much less than 2014 or 2015, the extra $28 per head could make a big difference this year.
Many producers pass up this technology believing that they will make up the difference in price premiums. In the earlier example, the non-implanted calves would need to bring $180.60 per hundred pounds to have the same dollar value as the heavier, implanted calves. Perhaps that premium will be there, if the right buyer is in the seats and that changes in the supply and demand for non-implanted calves do not result in reduced or eliminated price premiums. The sale records from more than 2.5 million calves sold on Superior Livestock Auction show that there has not been a significant price difference between implanted and non-implanted calves. It is a much more certain bet to count on the pounds being there by using implants.
Implant timing
Implants need to be given at the proper time to be the most effective. Research from SDSU has shown that calves from mature cows respond best when implanted early; calves from young cows should be implanted at preconditioning time for best results. Those differences are due to differences in nutrient intake by the calves. Mature cows produce more milk; therefore their calves respond more when implanted earlier compared to younger cows. By August the response to the implant is driven by nutrient intake from forage. For that reason calves from young cows show a greater response when implanting is delayed, provided that there is adequate forage or feed resources to support that growth, compared to implanting those calves earlier in the season.
Other considerations
Other considerations for using implants on nursing calves include:
·Don't use on newborn calves.
·Don't use on calves that are sick.
·The general recommendation has been to not use in replacement heifers. While Ralgro, Synovex-C, and Component E-C are labeled for use in replacement heifer calves, implanting can result in reduced pregnancy rates. To avoid any potential loss in fertility, or difficulty in marketing heifer calves as replacements, the most conservative approach would be to avoid implanting replacement heifers.
·However, implanting heifer calves during the suckling phase that are unlikely to be retained or marketed as replacements would increase ranch revenue.
·Finally, follow proper implanting procedures. With a potential return of about $20 per head or more, it is worth taking the time to do the job correctly every time.
Putting money in the bank by implanting calves
By Warren Rusche iGrow May 17, 2016
If someone was offering a deal promising that for every $1 invested there would be a $25 payoff four to six months later, how many takers would there be? Sounds too good to be true, but that is exactly the payoff from using implants on nursing calves this year.
Why use growth promoting implants?
Growth promoting implants are one of the most proven and effective technologies available to beef producers. As long as the calf can obtain sufficient nutrients to support the extra growth, using one of the approved implants (Component E-C, Ralgro, or Synovex-C) should result in an additional 20 to 30 more pounds at weaning. Suppose a non-implanted calf that weighs 500 pounds is worth $1.75 per pound this fall, or $875 per head. Implanting would result in a calf weighing 525 pounds at $1.72 per pound (10 cent slide per hundred pounds), or $903 per head. Considering that calf values will likely be much less than 2014 or 2015, the extra $28 per head could make a big difference this year.
Many producers pass up this technology believing that they will make up the difference in price premiums. In the earlier example, the non-implanted calves would need to bring $180.60 per hundred pounds to have the same dollar value as the heavier, implanted calves. Perhaps that premium will be there, if the right buyer is in the seats and that changes in the supply and demand for non-implanted calves do not result in reduced or eliminated price premiums. The sale records from more than 2.5 million calves sold on Superior Livestock Auction show that there has not been a significant price difference between implanted and non-implanted calves. It is a much more certain bet to count on the pounds being there by using implants.
Implant timing
Implants need to be given at the proper time to be the most effective. Research from SDSU has shown that calves from mature cows respond best when implanted early; calves from young cows should be implanted at preconditioning time for best results. Those differences are due to differences in nutrient intake by the calves. Mature cows produce more milk; therefore their calves respond more when implanted earlier compared to younger cows. By August the response to the implant is driven by nutrient intake from forage. For that reason calves from young cows show a greater response when implanting is delayed, provided that there is adequate forage or feed resources to support that growth, compared to implanting those calves earlier in the season.
Other considerations
Other considerations for using implants on nursing calves include:
·Don't use on newborn calves.
·Don't use on calves that are sick.
·The general recommendation has been to not use in replacement heifers. While Ralgro, Synovex-C, and Component E-C are labeled for use in replacement heifer calves, implanting can result in reduced pregnancy rates. To avoid any potential loss in fertility, or difficulty in marketing heifer calves as replacements, the most conservative approach would be to avoid implanting replacement heifers.
·However, implanting heifer calves during the suckling phase that are unlikely to be retained or marketed as replacements would increase ranch revenue.
·Finally, follow proper implanting procedures. With a potential return of about $20 per head or more, it is worth taking the time to do the job correctly every time.
Stocker Steve
Well-known member
After a couple years of hard cull'in for weaning weight, it looks like I need to implant bull calves from mature simi cross cows "early". What does early but not at birth mean in days?
Have you seen an effect on retained heifer calves?
Have you seen an effect on retained heifer calves?
bird dog
Well-known member
Steve, the adg is important to get the most out of the product. If they ain't got nothing good to eat, nothing will help. For only a $1.50 or so to put one in, to me it is foolish not too, even if the gain is only a few pounds.
I give every calf at first work an implant and another at weaning if I am going to keep them a while. Heifers that I think I might want to keep, don't get the second application.
I have not noticed a problem with heifers but I only retain a handful.
I give every calf at first work an implant and another at weaning if I am going to keep them a while. Heifers that I think I might want to keep, don't get the second application.
I have not noticed a problem with heifers but I only retain a handful.
NolanCountyAG
Well-known member
I know ralgro is backordered. The way his comment read was that you can't use it in his area not that he couldn't find it. My med supplier said the hold back has to do with some inspector throwing the book at them at the plant. Everything is supposed to be cleared up by mid 2018. Supplier saved me 2 boxes when he heard they were going to stop shipping it early this year.
