health and performance during the stocker and feedlot...

Health and Performance During the Stocker and Feedlot Period

2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course

Overview

• Beef production/marketing system and bovine

respiratory disease (BRD) pathogenesis

• Why BRD negatively effects performance

• Preconditioning

• Vaccinating high-risk beef cattle

• Hydration therapy in high-risk beef calves

• Conclusions

Florida Beef Cattle Short CourseMay 11, 2018

Marketing Scenario for High-risk Calves

1. Separated from dam on Tuesday morning

2. Transported to auction market on Tuesday afternoon

3. Handled and sold at auction market on Wednesday (virus transmission)

4. Commingled with other calves onto truck on Thursday

5. Transported to order buyer facility on Thursday

6. Commingled again at order buyer facility on Thursday

7. Transported to feedlot Thursday overnight*

8. Unloaded in a novel environment on Friday morning

9. Processed on Saturday

10. Chronically Stressed with BRD outbreak within 14 days

bovine viral diarrhea virus

bovine herpesvirus-1

Manheimia haemolytica

parainfluenza-3 virusbovine respiratory

syncytial virus

bovine coronavirus

Weaning

Parasitic infection

Commingling

Castration

Transportation

Extreme heat/cold

Pastuerella multocida

Mycoplasma bovis

Social hierarchy disruption

Diesel exhaust

Dehydration

Auction Market

Drought

Processing/handling

Leukotoxin

Chronic inflammation

Dust

Shrink

Pathogenesis of bovine respiratory disease

Physiological Stress

Poor nutritional status

Bovine Respiratory Disease

In U.S. feedlots, bovine respiratory disease (BRD) account for:

• 70 - 80% of morbidity

• 40 - 50% of mortality

• 14.4% of all cattle placed in feedlots develop BRD (USDA, Feedlot 2011)

– 20 to 80% morbidity, 1 to 12% mortality in high-risk auction market derived calves

received at WTAMU Research Feedlot

• Average 35% morbidity, 5% mortality

– Over 90% of BRD cases occur before day 42 in high risk calves received at WTAMU

Research Feedlot

• Average antibiotic treatment cost of $12.59/treated animal (USDA, Feedlot 2011)

• Substantial losses in performance and carcass quality (~20% overall loss)

• Overall cost to beef industry = ~$1 Billion USD annually

“Sick cattle don’t eat”

• Stress

• Inflammation

Stress

General consequences of stress in beef cattle (Loerch and

Fluharty, 1999):

1. Transient endocrine responses are likely

2. Products of protein and energy metabolism are altered

3. Appetite and growth rate are affected

4. Digestion and rumen function are compromised

5. Immune system is challenged

Acute vs. Chronic Stress and

Digestibility

• Control

• Acute Stress

• Chronic Stress

Inflammation

Effect of inflammation on growth performance

Natural infection with respiratory or other pathogens

Vaccines

“Stress”

Immunostimulants?

“Direct and indirect effects of proinflammatory cytokines may

decrease feed intake by more than 50% during acute disease

challenge” (Klasing and Korver, 1997)

Immunity and convalescence takes

precedence over growth

Preconditioning

Preconditioning

• Requirements (listed in my biased order of importance):

1. Weaned and kept on ranch for ≥ 45 days

2. Castrated

3. Bunk-broke

4. Vaccinated

5. Dehorned

6. Dewormed

Buyer Benefit:

Cravey (1996)

Seeger et al. (2008)

Step et al. (2008)

Richeson et al. (2012)

Seller Benefit?

Vaccinating high-risk calves

Table 3. Vaccination recommendations by feedlot vet-

erinarians for low- and high-health-risk feeder cattle at

time of processing (% of total responses).

Antigen

High-risk cattle

Low-risk cattle

IBRa

23 (100%)e

23 (100%)

BVDb type 1 23 (100%) 22 (95.65%)

BVD type 2 23 (100%) 22 (95.65%)

BRSVc 15 (65.22%) 12 (52.17%)

PI3d 14 (60.87%) 12 (52.17%)

Histophilus somni 5 (21.74%) 1 (4.35%)

Moraxella bovis 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Mycoplasma bovis 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Leptospira vaccine 1 (4.35%) 1 (4.35%)

Clostridial bacterin-toxoids 14 (60.87%) 13 (56.62%)

Mannheimia haemolytica 17 (73.91%) 0 (0%)

Pasturella multocida 8 (34.78%) 0 (0%)

Autogenous bacterins 9 (39.13%) 0 (0%)

aInfectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus bBovine viral diarrhea virus cBovine respiratory syncytial virus dParainfluenza-3 virus eNumber of responses (percentage of responses)

In: Terrell et al. (2011)

Vaccine label statements

• “Vaccinate prior to times of stress or exposure”

• “Protect animals from exposure for at least 14 days after

vaccination”

Delayed MLV vaccination

• Richeson et al. (2008) JAS 86:999-1005

• Richeson et al. (2009) JAS 87:2409-2418

Item AMLV DMLV SEM P-value

BRD Morbidity rate, % 71.5 63.5 7.61 0.12

Days to first BRDdiagnosis

7.2 7.7 1.34 0.72

ADG (day 0 to 42), kg/day

0.65 0.75 0.09 0.05

Item AMLV DMLV SEM P-value

BRD Morbidity rate, % 73.4 65.1 9.60 0.23

Days to first BRD diagnosis

6.65 7.65 0.76 0.09

ADG (day 0 to 56), kg/day

0.97 0.92 0.07 0.34

In: Richeson et al. (2009)

Delayed MLV vaccination

• Poe et al. (2013) PAS 29:413-419

• Richeson et al. (2015) BP 49:37-42

Item AMLV DMLV SEM P-value

BRD Morbidity rate, % 78.5 82.3 12.3 0.62

Days to first BRDdiagnosis

1.05 1.1 0.3 0.66

ADG (day 0 to 42), kg/day

0.86 0.89 0.19 0.53

Item AMLV DMLV SEM P-value

BRD Morbidity rate, % 35.4 34.9 11.2 0.94

Days to first BRD diagnosis

9.9 9.7 2.2 0.91

ADG (day 0 to 56), kg/day

0.64 0.67 0.33 0.39

In: Poe et al. (2013)

Delayed MLV vaccination

• Rogers et al. (2016) BP 50:154-162

Item Arrival MLV Delayed MLV (30 DOF)

SEM P-value

BRD1 treatment1, %

22.5 22.9 1.83 0.70

BRD2 treatments1, %

9.5 7.9 1.16 0.04

BRD3 treatments1, %

4.5 3.9 0.74 0.35

BRDRe-treatment2, %

45.4 38.3 3.31 0.01

BRD case fatality2,%

12.8 10.2 2.07 0.13

BRD mortality,2 % 3.7 3.0 0.71 0.13

1At day 602At day 116

Why vaccines fail in high-risk calves

• The timing is wrong…

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

BR

D M

orb

idit

y, %

of

an

imals

Trial Date

AMLV

DMLV

Why vaccines fail in high-risk calves

• There is concurrent wild-type virus

challenge…

Truckload BHV-1 BVDV BRSV PI-3V

1 6/62 (9.68%) 0/62 (0%) 9/62 (1.45%) 1/62 (1.61%)

2 4/62 (6.45%) 1/62 (1.61%) 4/62 (6.45%) 1/62 (1.61%)

3 1/64 (1.56%) 0/64 (0%) 8/64 (1.25%) 19/64 (29.69%)

4 3/81 (3.70%) 1/81 (1.23%) 15/81 (1.85%) 2/81 (2.47%)

Overall 14/269 (5.20%) 2/269 (0.74%) 37/269 (13.8%) 23/269 (8.55%)

Why vaccines fail

• The MLV antigens, although attenuated, may

contribute to clinical disease when administered

to immunosuppressed cattle….

In: Richeson et al. (2016)

Metaphylaxis • “Treatment of an entire group or population of cattle with an FDA-

approved antimicrobial with the intention of controlling an anticipated outbreak of acute-onset respiratory disease in highly stressed, newly received calves” (Ives and Richeson, 2015)

• Metaphylaxis consistently decreases morbidity and mortality (Amrine et al., 2014; Frank et al., 2002; Tennet et al., 2014)

• 92.6% use in high-capacity feedlots, to cattle <700lbs (Feedlot 2011, USDA)

• PMI is highly valuable management tool and metaphylaxis adds significant value in high-risk calves

• Is this a sustainable practice?

Hydration Therapy Research

Materials and Methods

• 3 truckload blocks of high risk bull (n=242)

and steer (n=55) calves

• 2 experimental treatments:

– 0.57 L water/100 lb BW at initial processing (H20)

– No water (CON)

Materials and Methods

• Subset (n=60, 20/block) evaluated:

– Rumination and activity index

– Rumen pH and temperature

• Additional fixed effects evaluated:

– BRD cases (BRD) vs. non-treated controls (RCON)

– Block, pen, experimental treatment was random in the mixed model analysis

Rumination Minutes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55

Min

ute

s/d

ay

Day

Ptrt = 0.81Pday < 0.01Ptrtxday = 0.30

Rumination Minutes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

Min

ute

s/h

ou

r

Time, hour of day

**

*

*

**

PBRD < 0.01Phour < 0.01PBRDxhour < 0.01

Rumen Temperature

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55

Ru

me

n t

em

pe

ratu

re, °F

Day

RCON BRD

*

*

*

* ** *

** *

*

** *

* * ** *

*

** *

*******

***

PBRD < 0.01Pday < 0.01PBRDxday < 0.01

Initial MLV vaccination

Activity Index

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55

Act

ivit

y in

dex

Day

RCON BRD

* ** *

*** *

* ** *

**

* * ***

* *

PBRD = 0.02Pday < 0.01PBRDxday = 0.04

Rumen pH

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55

Ru

me

n p

H

Day

Ptrt = 0.50Pday < 0.01Ptrtxday = 0.78

Conclusions

• Marketing strategy significantly impacts the

subsequent health and performance of beef

calves

• Preconditioning works, but there are seller

risks and limitations (i.e., commingling)

Conclusions

• Vaccine efficacy in high-risk calves is

equivocal at best – greater upstream adoption

is needed

• Need more research that focuses on addressing

dehydration and negative energy balance of high-

risk newly received cattle

Thank you!

John Richeson, PhD

jricheson@wtamu.edu

(806) 651-2522

@wtfeedlot