Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Growth potential not used

If a beef farmer won $1000 in Lotto, what would be the best use of that money: reduce the overdraft, buy a genetically improved bull, or put on more fertiliser? This wa s the question recently posed by Canterbury animal production consultant Rod McKenzie, who is a frequent writer for farmer magazines, an agricultural scientist and a farmer. "If you've got the feed for them, then spend the $1000 on growth promotants," is Mr McKenzie's answer. "The implants will return $7000 after three months on an investment of $1000." "You'll be $1,250 better off after 12 months from reducing your overdraft; $1,800 better off after three months from putting nitrogen on spring pastures and $3,600 better off after five years from buying a better bull," Mr McKenzie said. While observing that growth promotants had been availabe in New

Zealand since 1972, he noted that usage levels at only 15 percent were surprisingly low, given the potential benefits. "A review three years ago of all trials with Ralgro - the only growth promotant marketed in New Zealand - showed that average daily growth rates were improved by 21 percent," said Mr McKenzie. He said since most of these trials were carried out in spring, it was decided that eight more trials should be conducted in the North Island during the last. two Autumns. They involved a wide range of locations, feed conditions, grazing management and breeds. Private vets and MAF advisers were involved in the supervision of these trials in their local areas. Mr McKenzie said that considering the different conditions, the responses - with the exception of one trial - were consistently high. "Low feed levels and some ill-thrift problems

caused a nil growth rate in the South Auckland trial. The untreated animals actually lost weight," he said. "To get the most out of productivity enhancers, implanted cattle need above-maintenance levels of food and good animal health. Excluding this one trial, where these conditions weren't met, the average liveweight response to a single implant was 13.1 kg. The extra liveweight resulting from implanting was in a narrow band of 9.4 to 15.2 kg." The average dollar return for the seven trials was $22.22. With Ralgro costing $3.30, this represents a 7:1 economic return in three months. Any extra labour charges need to be deducted from this. However implanting is commonly carried out at the same time as other operations. "Those beef farmers who are not implanting their steers and fattening heifers are losing about $25 a head in profit opportunity every 70 to 90 days," Mr McKenzie claimed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAIBUL19871215.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 5, Issue 29, 15 December 1987, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
428

Growth potential not used Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 5, Issue 29, 15 December 1987, Page 4

Growth potential not used Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 5, Issue 29, 15 December 1987, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert