Implanting show cattle

Help Support Steer Planet:

DEA

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
105
How often and when do you implant your show cattle?  Is Revelor (sp) the best? 
 

BCCC

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
2,087
Location
Hillsboro, TX
Normally you use the last couple months before show, revelor(sp) and ralgro are the better ones, make sure if it says to re-implant them in 30 days you do it in 30 days or sooner other wise they will go off feed for a while and not gain. Just our experince though
 

BCCC

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
2,087
Location
Hillsboro, TX
Its a growth hormone(i think) that you stick in the base of the ear and it increases muscle mass, and growth.
 

simtal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
1,066
Location
Champaign, IL
implants are compounds that usually contain estadiol (essentially estrogen) and tba (trenbolone acetate).  They are given at various stages in the life of steer.  Some can be given at weaning, most are given when a calf starts on feed and re-implanted 100 days prior to slaughter.  They are SAFE, effective compounds that increase gain, feed efficiency, and carcass weight, and HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN TO NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE HEALTH AFFECTS ON PEOPLE CONSUMING MEAT FROM IMPLANTED CATTLE.  your probably wondering why I capitalized that last bit, not everyone on this board knows the truth about implants.
 

bcosu

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
853
Location
Ohio
i've heard of some salesmen eating ralgro pellets to prove they don't hurt.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
it's probably studies like this that will affect policy rather than consumer decisions which are driven by populism.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031219072830.htm

According to the study, published in the online version of the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the male fish had one-third less testosterone and their testes were about half as big as those of unexposed fish upstream. The female fish had about 20 percent less estrogen and 45 percent more testosterone than females from the uncontaminated stream.


not sure why both would have less of a different hormone if there are probably more male cattle being fed (breakdown?)

seems like if i was a peer reviewer, i would have had them expose fish to increased levels of each hormone independently and in concert with ratios found in the feedlot as controls before publication.  but, i guess it didn't fit the agenda.

"In contrast to humans, aquatic wildlife is exposed to an unknown concentration of synthetic and natural hormones excreted by the cattle."

this wouldn't be that hard to calculate or emulate.

i hate how they can ALWAYS get away with using words like UNKNOWN, whose intent is so clearly obvious, and in my book, irresponsible.

i wonder how these fish evolved when the bison herds, mammoths, and dinosaurs trumbled through the streams.  i'd hate to have a brachyosaurus poop legislated out of the waterways.

on the other hand, i'm not for putting feedlots next to streams and think producers do and should use sediment/nutrient traps, which, have been show to work by they same journal.
 
Top