To implant or not to implant

[Ky hills]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

What ever works. Personally, my take on science and new techniques in raising cattle, can sometimes be beneficial. Not convinced it's always practical or all together better. I have come to see things in terms of lots of companies and folks making money off of cattle producers.

 

[callmefence]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

 

[Buck Randall]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

That's the same silly argument that the anti-vaccine people use.

Good research is good research, regardless of where the money comes from. Implants have been studied for decades, and both the drug companies and neutral institutions agree that they are effective and economical. The results are unequivocal. If you don't want to use them, fine, it's your right. I don't have a problem with people not using implants, but I do have a problem with people tearing down facts to try to justify their position.

Whether the argument is about implanting calves, using AI, vaccinating your kids, or climate change, there's always some fool who wants to dismiss the the facts using a personal anecdote. You implanted calves and didn't see a difference, your sale barn bull threw calves just as good as the AI stud, nobody you know has ever had polio, and the weather at your house doesn't seem all that different than it's ever been. Good for you, but the facts are still the facts.

 

[callmefence]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

That's the same silly argument that the anti-vaccine people use.

Good research is good research, regardless of where the money comes from. Implants have been studied for decades, and both the drug companies and neutral institutions agree that they are effective and economical. The results are unequivocal. If you don't want to use them, fine, it's your right. I don't have a problem with people not using implants, but I do have a problem with people tearing down facts to try to justify their position.

Whether the argument is about implanting calves, using AI, vaccinating your kids, or climate change, there's always some fool who wants to dismiss the the facts using a personal anecdote. You implanted calves and didn't see a difference, your sale barn bull threw calves just as good as the AI stud, nobody you know has ever had polio, and the weather at your house doesn't seem all that different than it's ever been. Good for you, but the facts are still the facts.

The fact you want to call me names pretty much proves you have nothing to add. My facts are based on my experience. Not on what I read on the internet.
When I post here, I'm either funning around or I'm posting on my actual experience. Never regurgitation of something I heard. Which is all you seem to post. I'm not trying to tear anything down. Just putting in my two cents. If you have a problem with that...go hump a stump...To quote highgrit
I don't believe anything I hear , and only half of what I see.

 

[Buck Randall]

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

That's the same silly argument that the anti-vaccine people use.

Good research is good research, regardless of where the money comes from. Implants have been studied for decades, and both the drug companies and neutral institutions agree that they are effective and economical. The results are unequivocal. If you don't want to use them, fine, it's your right. I don't have a problem with people not using implants, but I do have a problem with people tearing down facts to try to justify their position.

Whether the argument is about implanting calves, using AI, vaccinating your kids, or climate change, there's always some fool who wants to dismiss the the facts using a personal anecdote. You implanted calves and didn't see a difference, your sale barn bull threw calves just as good as the AI stud, nobody you know has ever had polio, and the weather at your house doesn't seem all that different than it's ever been. Good for you, but the facts are still the facts.

The fact you want to call me names pretty much proves you have nothing to add. My facts are based on my experience. Not on what I read on the internet.
When I post here, I'm either funning around or I'm posting on my actual experience. Never regurgitation of something I heard. Which is all you seem to post. I'm not trying to tear anything down. Just putting in my two cents. If you have a problem with that...go hump a stump...To quote highgrit
I don't believe anything I hear , and only half of what I see.

I didn't call you names. How should I interpret you posting "Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling the product." Sure sounds like an attempt to discredit the science to me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go find a stump.

 

[callmefence]

That's the same silly argument that the anti-vaccine people use.

Good research is good research, regardless of where the money comes from. Implants have been studied for decades, and both the drug companies and neutral institutions agree that they are effective and economical. The results are unequivocal. If you don't want to use them, fine, it's your right. I don't have a problem with people not using implants, but I do have a problem with people tearing down facts to try to justify their position.

Whether the argument is about implanting calves, using AI, vaccinating your kids, or climate change, there's always some fool who wants to dismiss the the facts using a personal anecdote. You implanted calves and didn't see a difference, your sale barn bull threw calves just as good as the AI stud, nobody you know has ever had polio, and the weather at your house doesn't seem all that different than it's ever been. Good for you, but the facts are still the facts.

The fact you want to call me names pretty much proves you have nothing to add. My facts are based on my experience. Not on what I read on the internet.
When I post here, I'm either funning around or I'm posting on my actual experience. Never regurgitation of something I heard. Which is all you seem to post. I'm not trying to tear anything down. Just putting in my two cents. If you have a problem with that...go hump a stump...To quote highgrit
I don't believe anything I hear , and only half of what I see.

I didn't call you names. How should I interpret you posting "Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling the product." Sure sounds like an attempt to discredit the science to me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go find a stump.

Yes when the science if produced by the same people selling the product. Distributed by a magazine that sells add space to the same.
It doesn't carry much creditability with me. 10 years ago everybody was using implants around here. That has gone to almost no one using them.....
Your excused... don't hurt yourself

 

[bird dog]

I implant. Always have. At first work and at weaning if I am pre-conditioning which I do to 95% of my calves. It would be almost impossible for anyone of us to have an accurate way to test the results, there are just to many variables.

Saying all that, the folks that I respect that can do a controlled test such as the Noble Institute, Tex A & M, and many others neutral parties back up the claim that they are beneficial to the industry and one of the easiest ways to add a few bucks to he bottom line. Its a $1.50 product that takes less than one minute to apply. If it only adds 5 lbs to the calf, its a darn good return on the investment.

Think of it this way, if the feedlot industry implants calves to add growth, why shouldn't you do the same to capture some of this value for your self. I hate give easy money to the middleman due to my laziness.

In my case just from observation, it just seems to add some muscle to young calves and it gives the weaned ones a quicker bounce back from the loss of weight in the weaning process. Then again, I'm looking through my rose colored glasses.

 

[Ky hills]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

That's the same silly argument that the anti-vaccine people use.

Good research is good research, regardless of where the money comes from. Implants have been studied for decades, and both the drug companies and neutral institutions agree that they are effective and economical. The results are unequivocal. If you don't want to use them, fine, it's your right. I don't have a problem with people not using implants, but I do have a problem with people tearing down facts to try to justify their position.

Whether the argument is about implanting calves, using AI, vaccinating your kids, or climate change, there's always some fool who wants to dismiss the the facts using a personal anecdote. You implanted calves and didn't see a difference, your sale barn bull threw calves just as good as the AI stud, nobody you know has ever had polio, and the weather at your house doesn't seem all that different than it's ever been. Good for you, but the facts are still the facts.

It is not necessarily being a "fool" to question so called facts. I believe some scientific research and developments have been beneficial. On the other hand much of the product research in my opinion can be skewed to favor a desired result. The fine print on a lot of products reads to the effect of results may vary ect.
I have known people that had polio. I also believe that my mother may have still been living if not for some new great drug.
On the subject of AI, Used to utilize it in our registered herd, then tried the TAI stuff years later and our commercial herd got out of whack on calving window worse than ever, still working to get some semblance of that back, by using bulls. I'm not saying that AI bulls are inferior, but just because some one doesn't AI doesn't mean they are buying low end stockyard bulls either. Fact is I do as most others do utilize many modern inventions, and would be lost with out them likely. I just don't believe that every farmer needs to buy into the hype of every latest and greatest animal or gadget that hits the market even if it is backed up by science. Pick and choose what works. If I had money to buy all of it then I doubt I would be trying to farm.

 

[Dave]

Here there are two schools of thought on the subject. Simplot runs several big feedlots in this area. They go the natural route so people who sell to them don't implant. They are shooting for getting a higher price by being able to sell the calves as all natural. The other school goes for more growth by implanting. I know one guy who runs about 800 momma cows. One year at his brandings he implanted 3/4 of his calves. First calf got implant A. The second implant B. The third got implant C. The fourth calf got no implant. And so on through the herd. Calves were marked by which treatment they got. This was completely random in selection as it was done based on which calf got drug to the fire first. All of the implant groups out did the no implant group. Results varied some depending on which implant was used. If I remember correctly there was between 19 and 11 pounds difference. And I don't remember which implant did the best. I do know that he implants all his calves now. An extra 19 pounds each on 800 calves is 15,200 pounds. At say $1.50 a pound that is $22,800. That is a pretty good return on an $800 investment. And labor to implant is nothing as it is done while calves are being branded.

 

[skyhightree1]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

Some people cant see the forest for the trees

 

[5S Cattle]

I'll stick with science, and with 90% of people who make their living with cattle do.

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

Some people cant see the forest for the trees

You think that 90% of feedlots implant because their cousin thinks implants work, or because they've done actual controlled tests like Dave and seen the results pay off? Every single person I know that runs stocker calves implant also. Guess it's a fad

 

[callmefence]

Just remember, the science is usually the work of the ones selling product.

Some people cant see the forest for the trees

You think that 90% of feedlots implant because their cousin thinks implants work, or because they've done actual controlled tests like Dave and seen the results pay off? Every single person I know that runs stocker calves implant also. Guess it's a fad

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up. I gave my opinion, and it's based on my experience. And I gave it when you asked for it.
If you don't want it , don't ask....

 

[farmerjan]

We don't implant. Sell the feeders as natural/no implants and those that want them can get them. Anyone can implant a calf that has not had one previously. Neighbor implants. Well, we do it for them actually as we make all their hay too and work their cattle for them. I am not a fan, won't say there might not be some weight gain, and we are actually thinking about doing some steers this next year as a personal trial.... but will not do any heifers as we sell some to a couple of people who are looking for some to use as commercial replacements and am not going to take any chances on any problems down the road.
I also don't believe all the research that comes down the pike from the companies that are doing it to promote their own product. I like the way the friends of Dave's did it. Basically a totally random test. It worked for them. Not saying that if they did it for 2 or 5 years running.... could have been different results over a longer period of time but they did it as random as it comes it seems like.
I agree with Sky, he gave an opinion. Didn't say it was right, just his own observations on his place. Different years, different rain/pasture/heat conditions might change the results. I prefer not to do it, but my son wants to try some next year so I think he might. I will have to be very dilligent with records so that we can distinguish between implanted and non-implanted. To do a truly random test, will have to run both together at the same pastures because if we split them at different places, we could see differences of rainfall and types of grasses and that would change our results with all the rented pastures we use.

 

[5S Cattle]

That was directed at sky, fence.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Some people cant see the forest for the trees

You think that 90% of feedlots implant because their cousin thinks implants work, or because they've done actual controlled tests like Dave and seen the results pay off? Every single person I know that runs stocker calves implant also. Guess it's a fad

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up. I gave my opinion, and it's based on my experience. And I gave it when you asked for it.
If you don't want it , don't ask....

I'm cool, you lost me when you started quoting Grit.

 

[Buck Randall]

It is not necessarily being a "fool" to question so called facts. I believe some scientific research and developments have been beneficial. On the other hand much of the product research in my opinion can be skewed to favor a desired result. The fine print on a lot of products reads to the effect of results may vary ect.
I have known people that had polio. I also believe that my mother may have still been living if not for some new great drug.
On the subject of AI, Used to utilize it in our registered herd, then tried the TAI stuff years later and our commercial herd got out of whack on calving window worse than ever, still working to get some semblance of that back, by using bulls. I'm not saying that AI bulls are inferior, but just because some one doesn't AI doesn't mean they are buying low end stockyard bulls either. Fact is I do as most others do utilize many modern inventions, and would be lost with out them likely. I just don't believe that every farmer needs to buy into the hype of every latest and greatest animal or gadget that hits the market even if it is backed up by science. Pick and choose what works. If I had money to buy all of it then I doubt I would be trying to farm.

Questioning research and development is a good thing. There are lots of products that don't work the way they did in research trials because life doesn't always play out like a research trial. There comes a point, however, when denying mountains of scientific evidence and real world observation is just foolish.
I'm not criticizing anyone for not implanting calves. If a person said that they'd just rather not mess with it, I could respect that. There are valid reasons for not doing it, but "I don't think they work" or "the drug companies just made up the research" are not.
Same thing with the AI. I grew up on a farm that still uses bulls exclusively, and they aren't particularly high quality. It works fine for my dad, but neither of us would try to claim that his calves are consistently on par with some AI quality stock.

When I was in school, an old vet once told me, "We all have reasons for doing things the way that we do, but don't ever fall into the trap of believing your own b.s." It's human nature to believe that our own way is the best way. When significant evidence suggests you are wrong, consider that you might be wrong, rather than making up some baloney to justify it.

 

[callmefence]

It is not necessarily being a "fool" to question so called facts. I believe some scientific research and developments have been beneficial. On the other hand much of the product research in my opinion can be skewed to favor a desired result. The fine print on a lot of products reads to the effect of results may vary ect.
I have known people that had polio. I also believe that my mother may have still been living if not for some new great drug.
On the subject of AI, Used to utilize it in our registered herd, then tried the TAI stuff years later and our commercial herd got out of whack on calving window worse than ever, still working to get some semblance of that back, by using bulls. I'm not saying that AI bulls are inferior, but just because some one doesn't AI doesn't mean they are buying low end stockyard bulls either. Fact is I do as most others do utilize many modern inventions, and would be lost with out them likely. I just don't believe that every farmer needs to buy into the hype of every latest and greatest animal or gadget that hits the market even if it is backed up by science. Pick and choose what works. If I had money to buy all of it then I doubt I would be trying to farm.

Questioning research and development is a good thing. There are lots of products that don't work the way they did in research trials because life doesn't always play out like a research trial. There comes a point, however, when denying mountains of scientific evidence and real world observation is just foolish.
I'm not criticizing anyone for not implanting calves. If a person said that they'd just rather not mess with it, I could respect that. There are valid reasons for not doing it, but "I don't think they work" or "the drug companies just made up the research" are not.
Same thing with the AI. I grew up on a farm that still uses bulls exclusively, and they aren't particularly high quality. It works fine for my dad, but neither of us would try to claim that his calves are consistently on par with some AI quality stock.

When I was in school, an old vet once told me, "We all have reasons for doing things the way that we do, but don't ever fall into the trap of believing your own b.s." It's human nature to believe that our own way is the best way. When significant evidence suggests you are wrong, consider that you might be wrong, rather than making up some baloney to justify it.

You should have listened to that old vet, you wouldn't be trying to get your foot out of your mouth.

 

[callmefence]

You think that 90% of feedlots implant because their cousin thinks implants work, or because they've done actual controlled tests like Dave and seen the results pay off? Every single person I know that runs stocker calves implant also. Guess it's a fad

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up. I gave my opinion, and it's based on my experience. And I gave it when you asked for it.
If you don't want it , don't ask....

I'm cool, you lost me when you started quoting Grit.

If only knew how much crap I get for not turning on you... ;-)

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up. I gave my opinion, and it's based on my experience. And I gave it when you asked for it.
If you don't want it , don't ask....

I'm cool, you lost me when you started quoting Grit.

If only knew how much crap I get for not turning on you... ;-)

You're a tough no nonsense kinda guy. You'd turn on me if I was in the wrong, and be right in doing so.

 

[Buck Randall]

You should have listened to that old vet, you wouldn't be trying to get your foot out of your mouth.

You misinterpret me, but I'm not surprised. Keep on insisting that up is down.