 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
New approach to an old problem Abscessed implants cost the cattle owner. No, a calf typically won't die from an abscessed implant, but the effectiveness of the implant is decreased so the calf misses out on the extra gain. That can account for a loss of $17.70 per head in decreased average daily gains and lowered feed efficiency, according to a Kansas State University study. Plus the owner is out the cost of the implant, any charge from the feedyard to implant the calf, plus the medicine it takes to treat the abscess. So the cost of an abscessed implant can really add up. On page 8 of this issue, you'll find an article by Fort Dodge Animal Health that describes a simple and highly successful process that has been developed to decrease the number of abscessed implants. It involves scraping, brushing and disinfecting the ear. It's easy and effective as long as it's used consistently. Another new method that has recently been introduced by VetLife consists of placing a pellet of antibiotic in the implant cartridge so that a localized antibiotic is included with every implant. Time will tell if this latest approach will prove beneficial. Scientists have worked for years to decrease implant abscesses. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s an approach to combat infections at implant sites was called "shake and bake." It wasn't exactly high tech. The procedure consisted of placing the implant cartridge in a plastic bag and adding various types of antibiotic powders (such as oxytetraycline hydrochloride, tylosin, etc.). In the mixing process, the implant cartridges and doses were dusted with the antibiotic powders. The dusted implants were then administered to cattle. Unfortunately this approach didn't achieve the desired goal of significantly reducing implant site abscesses. While growth implant site abscesses were somewhat reduced, good sanitation methods without antibiotic dusting gave the highest and most consistent results. Implanting growth promotants is almost a mechanical process. The special preparation of the implant site definitely takes more time; however, if administered correctly, implant effectiveness can reach 100 percent. Statistics like that prove that doing the job right the first time is definitely a benefit. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
||||