 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
In addition to its costs in time, labor and medication, BRD takes yet another toll on the beef producer's bottom line. "We know that if calves get sick, it costs you gain, and the more times they get sick, the more it costs," says Carl Guthrie, DVM, Elanco technical consultant. "That's accepted by just about everybody." Further support comes from a recent feedlot trial conducted in Colorado that examined the effect of BRD all the way to closeout. The study brought 400 steer calves from auction barns in South Dakota and Montana to a feedlot in Colorado. Because they came through a sale, were commingled, and took a long truck ride, these Northern calves were considered at high risk for developing BRD. The trial began during processing, when half of the calves were treated metaphylactically with Micotil for control of BRD, half were not. Veterinary Research and Consulting Services LLC, of Greeley, Colorado, oversaw the trial, which ended after 191 days when all the cattle were harvested. Differences between the two groups became evident during the calves' first 28 days on feed. The metaphylactic group had a morbidity rate of 25.5 percent; the control group's rate was 56.6 percent. In the metaphylactic group, the majority of the cattle -- 139 out of 200 -- were never treated for BRD following their on-arrival treatment. In the control group, only 76 of 200 were never treated during the entire study. Even among calves that seemed healthy, the metaphylaxis cattle showed a benefit. After 102 days on feed, at reimplant time, those never-treated cattle, which appeared healthy to feedlot personnel, showed an average daily gain of 0.2 pounds per day higher in the metaphylactic group than in the control group. "That tells me there's a lot of subclinical cases going on out there," Guthrie says. That's one of the big advantages to metaphylactically treating cattle on arrival, he says. In fact, calves that were treated on arrival showed a greater ADG during every phase of the trial; in the end, they had an ADG that was 2.3 percent greater than the control group, a 15.4 pound advantage on the hoof, and a 13.7 pound heavier hot carcass weight. Quality grade was also measured and revealed no differences between the two groups. For calves that did get sick, those in the metaphylactic group did so an average of four days later than their counterparts, allowing them more time to get on feed. Micotil was used as the first line of treatment for both groups. In the end, the metaphylactic group had improved performance in two ways: a lower overall morbidity and a higher ADG. "In the past, we thought the primary advantage (to metaphylactic treatment) came from reducing overall morbidity," Guthrie says. "But the ADG difference in these apparently healthy cattle suggests a degree of subclinical disease. To me, that's the "Aha" here. Until we get more data, I don't think we can say which is the bigger effect." © |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
||||