University field trials highlight the need for case-specific decisions in managing cattle health and economics
By Chevy-Lynn Vaske, K-State Extension news service
MANHATTAN, Kan. – Rising input costs and growing demands to improve cattle health are pushing producers to look closely at how they manage bovine respiratory disease (BRD), one of the beef industry’s most persistent health challenges.
Researchers at Kansas State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine recently shared findings from three field trials that tested treatment strategies in real-world feedlot settings.
“We’re always looking for ways to improve animal health,” said David Renter, a professor of epidemiology and director of K-State’s Center for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology (CORE). “Especially right now, it’s critical to understand how to help more animals make it across the finish line – through that high-risk sickness period and into providing safe, wholesome beef.”
Renter emphasized the purpose of the studies was not to make broad recommendations but to generate high-quality data that veterinarians and producers can use when making case-specific treatment decisions.
“That really is the mission of our center – to provide good information to the people who need it most,” he said.
The three trials were conducted over several years in collaboration with veterinarians and producers. Calves at varying levels of disease risk were enrolled, and those diagnosed with BRD were randomly assigned to different antibiotic treatments. Researchers tracked such outcomes as mortality, retreatment and chronic illness.
The first trial, which focused on high-risk calves that received metaphylaxis upon arrival, found no significant difference between two treatment options. The second trial, conducted in a similar population but with an added treatment group, found that one option significantly reduced mortality.
“These three studies reflect something we have seen time and time again in BRD research:, there is no single best treatment,” Renter said. “Outcomes are often inconsistent because the cattle we bring into backgrounding and feedlot operations are so different from one another. That’s why treatment choices really have to be made in consultation with a veterinarian who understands your specific cattle and operation.”
The team also evaluated the economic impact of disease intervention.
“The economics matter more now than they ever did a year ago,” Renter said. “Cattle are worth a lot more. So reducing death loss can have a much bigger payoff. But those returns are going to depend on the level of disease you’re seeing and what the intervention costs.”
To assist producers, a spreadsheet calculator is available at AgManager.info to help determine whether a treatment strategy may pay off in a specific operation.
For more information, listen to the full discussion on Agriculture Today.
