Knife Cutting vsbanding with MetaphylaxisTreatment

Transcription

1 Knife Cutting vsbanding with MetaphylaxisTreatment Faculty: Chris Richards, Clint Krehbiel, D.L. Step Graduate Students: Casey Maxwell, Blake Wilson, Dana Christensen, Joe Wagner, Blaine Johnson

2 Frequency of Bulls vs. Steers? Smith et al., % of male calves were bulls McDaniel et al., % of producers do not castrate males calves

3 Percent of operations that castrated male calves born in 1996 before sale by region North- South- West Central Central Central Southeast 89.2% 95.8% 82.8% 63.6% 65.0% 25.5% Calves not castrated Adapted from NAPHIS Cow-Calf 97

4 Average Daily Gain of animals arriving at a preconditioning facility as intact males compared to steers during a 44-d receiving period lbs Days ADG (lb) Difference vs 3.38 P= vs 4.46 P=0.02 Bulls Steers 2.42 vs 2.72 P=0.17 Day 0-15 Day Day 31-44

5 Pe ercentage Health Assessment P< Morbidity P= Mortality P< Case Fatality Rate Bulls Steers

6 BRD Treatments Perc centage b P< a a b 0 One Treatment > 1 Treatment Bulls Steers

7 Treatment Cost 15 US Do ollars Bulls Steers

8 Bulls vs. Steers: Body Wt Gain lbs P=0.49 P=0.57 P=0.21 Bulls Steers P=0.01 Day 0 Day 15 Day 30 Day 44

9 Conclusions Castration at arrival results in: Decreased performance - ~ $35 Increased health costs - $12 Purchase steer = $678 Purchase bull = $464 31% discount

10 Conclusions Castration at arrival results in: 27 lbless gain in 44 days ~10 increase in treatment cost

11 Common Questions How much should they be discounted? Is banding better? If they are likely to get sick, should we provide metaphylaxis treatment?

12 Knife Cutting vs. Banding Pull-N-Treat vs. Metaphylactic Treatment

13 Management Crossbred steers (269 hd) and bulls (356 hd) were purchased from livestock markets in Oklahoma and Arkansas between January and March 2011 Calves experienced a 2.5% shrink to Stillwater (avg= 100 mi; initial BW = 584 lb) from a pay weight of 598 lb After arrival weighing and tagging, calves were allowed to rest for 24 to 72 h with ad libitum access to prairie hay and water clostridialtoxins including Clostridium tetani(covexin8; IV/SP), IBR, PI 3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; BI), and internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial). Bulls castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicratebanderloops Half calves received metaphylatic animtimicrobial(draxxin; Pfizer, 1.1 ml/cwt) Penned by castration status and metaphylaxis Visual evaluation 2/1 times daily - treatment administered if rectal temperature> F

14 Feeding Cattle received in small groups (12-96 hd), pens were filled one set at a time (20-26 hd/pen) averaged 6 d to fill each pen d 0 = full pen Cattle were fed a common 65% concentrate ration 2x for free choice intake 2 lb/hd/d prairie hay fed until d 4 Calves were weighed on d 28 and 42 with a 2% pencil shrink applied Item, Ingredient % (DM Basis) Dry rolled corn 33.5 Corn DDGS 11.0 Sorghum WDGS 15.0 Prairie hay 34.5 Dry supplement Nutrient composition DM, % CP, % ADF, % NDF, % Ca, % 0.78 P, % Pelleted supplement contained the following (DM basis): 49.85% ground corn, 18.70% wheat middlings, 24.64% limestone, 4.83% urea, 3.94% salt, 1.51% magnesium oxide, 0.03% manganous oxide, 4.53% potassium chloride, 0.23% zinc sulfate, 0.07% vitamin A (30,000 IU/g), 0.04% vitamin E (50%), 0.34% Rumensin 80 (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN), and 0.21% Tylan 40 (Elanco Animal Health).

15 Anti-microbial Treatment Protocol Mass Med Pull-N-Treat Drug Post Trt Drug Post Trt Interval Interval Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d 2 nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d 3 rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d 4 th Treatment - - Baytril -

16 Weights Knife Band Steer Item, MM # NP MM NP MM NP Significant effects* Pens Total head Initial BW, lb Day 28 BW, lb SB Day 42 BW, lb SB # MM= metaphlaxis;np = Pull-n-trt; *SB = Steer vs. Bull

17 Feedlot performance Knife Band Steer Item, MM # NP MM NP MM NP Significant effects* Day 0-42 deads& realizers out ADG, lb/d SB DMI, lb/d SB, MM F:G, lb/lb SB, KB # MM= metaphylaxis;np = Pull-n-trt; *SB = Steer vs. Bull; MM = Metaphylaxisvs.Pull-n-Trt; KB = Knife vs. Band

18 Steers vs. Bulls DMI 11% increase ADG 0.69 lbor 32% increase Lb/d Lb/d Steer Bull 0 Steer Bull

19 MM vs. Pull-N-Treat Lb/d DMI 4% increase Lb/d ADG 7% increase, but not significant MM NP MM NP

20 Health 42 d Knife Band Steer Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP Significant effects* Pens Total head Treated once, % pen SB, KB, MM Total treatments, % pen SB, KB, MM Resp. Mortality, % pen Morbidity data reflect only respiratory disease. Treated once represents first treatments, and total treatments represent first treatments and all subsequent retreatments. 2 Mortality data reflect death only from respiratory disease. A post-mortem examination was conducted on all dead cattle to determine cause of death. # MM= mass med;np = Pull-n-trt; *SB = Steer vs. Bull; KB = Knifevs. Band; MM = Mass med vs.pull-n-trt

21 Economics Analysis was reflective of deads-out performance Processing costs and medicine costs are reflective of current market values, feed cost was $199.51/ton DM Purchase price was assumed to be $125.54/cwt

22 Economics -Estimates Knife Band Steer Item, MM # NP MM NP MM NP Significant effects* Processing cost, $/hd MM Medicine cost, $/hd Feed cost, $/hd Total cost, $/hd Breakeven w/o MM SB, MM SB, MM purchase price SB spread, $/lb 3 # MM= metaphylaxis,np = Pull-n-trt; *SB = Steer vs. Bull, MM = Mass med vs.pull-n-trt 2 Includes a methaphylaxiscost of $21.84/hdfor all MM treatments and a $3.35/hdfee for castration of all bulls.

23 Conclusions Bulls resulted in $0.07 increase in breakevensafter 42 days if purchased at the same price as steers ~6% decrease in purchase price Banding reduced morbidity compared to Knife MM reduced: treatments in bulls and steers Reduce mortality in bulls Numerically reduced breakevens($.02 to.03/cwt) in bulls Was 44 days long enough? With winter calves, castration method may be more an issue of producer preference

24 May we appreciate all we produce! Thank You

25 The End

26 Effects of castration method and antibiotic administration protocol on feedlot health, performance and economics of high-risk calves Materials and Methods 610 hdcrossbred calves (58% Bulls) purchased at livestock auctions in Oklahoma January 12, March 2, 2011 Initial weight 592 lbs. At arrival Weighed, received individual identification Allowed ad libitum access to hay and water until processing

27 Experimental Design 3 2 factorial (elastration [Band] vs. surgical emasculation [Knife] vs. Steer [Steer] metaphylaxis [MM] vs. pull and treat protocol [NP]) Pen was experimental unit Cattle were blocked by time period (January and March arrival) Performance and economic data analyzed using PROC GLM, and health data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX

28 Materials and Methods Processing h post-arrival Vaccination against: Clostridialtoxins including Clostridium tetani(covexin8; Intervet/Schering-Plough, Millsboro, DE) IBR, PI 3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; Boehringer Ingelheim, St. Joseph, MO) Internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA) Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicrate banderloops (Ross Manufacturing, St. Francis, KS) according to randomization Calves randomized to receive metaphylactictreatment were administered tulathromycin(1.1 ml/cwt) (Draxxin; Pfizer Animal Health, New York City, NY)

29 Cattle were visually appraised for signs of BRD twice daily for the first 14 d and once/d thereafter Cattle needing evaluation were pulled from home pen, and treatment was administered according to Table 1 with corresponding post-treatment intervals (PTI) if rectal temperature> F Table 1: Treatment Protocol MM NP Drug PTI Drug PTI Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d 2 nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d 3 rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d 4 th Treatment - - Baytril -

30 Results

31 The effects of treatment on feedlot performance with deadsand removals excluded 1 Knife Band Steer P-value Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE 4 Steer vs. Bull 5 Knife vs. Band 6 Pens Total head Initial BW, lb Day 28 BW, lb < MM vs. NP 7 Final BW, lb < Day 0-28 ADG, lb/d < DMI, lb/d G:F, lb/lb < Day 0-42 ADG, lb/d < DMI, lb/d < G:F, lb/lb <

32 % Bulls Steers % Bulls Steers 13 DMI, lb/lb P < ADG, lb/d P < % G:F, lb/lb Bulls Steers P < 0.01

33 The effects of treatment on feedlot health Knife Band Steer P-value Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP Steer vs. Bull 5 Knife vs. Band 6 MM vs. NP 7 Pens Total head Day 0-28 First treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Total treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Deads, % of pen Off-trials, % of pen Day 0-42 First treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Total treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Deads, % of pen Off-trials, % of pen

34 % Bulls Steers % Knife Band Total treatments, % of pen P < 0.01 Total treatments, % of pen P = Total treatments, % of pen % MM NP P < 0.01

35 The effects of treatment on feedlot economics Knife Band Steer Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE 4 vs. Steer Bull 5 P-value Knife vs. Band 6 MM vs. NP 7 Pens Total head Processing cost, $/hd <0.01 Medicine cost, $/hd <0.01 Feed cost, $/hd < Total cost, $/hd Cost of gain, $/lb < Breakeven, $/lb <

36 % Bulls Steers MM NP Cost of gain, $/lb P < 0.01 Bulls Steers Breakeven, $/lb % Bulls 1.16 Steers P < Bulls Steers MM NP

37 Conclusions Steers had improved feedlot performance, and lower morbidity resulting in lower breakevens MM did not effect breakevensand cost of gain of steers No difference in feedlot performance or economics due to castration methods MM improved breakevensand cost of gain in bulls 600 lbbulls should be purchased about 6% back from steers ~ $8-$10 in today s market

38

39 Retreatment % 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Bull vs. Steer (P< 0.01) Band vs. Knife (P= 0.06) 4.0% 10.5% Steer Band Knife 18.8%

40 ADG 42 day Bull vs. Steer (P< 0.01) Band vs. Knife (P= 0.48) Steer Band Knife

41

42

43

44

45 Effects of castration method and antibiotic administration protocol on feedlot health, performance and economics of high-risk calves Materials and Methods 610 hdcrossbred calves (58% Bulls) purchased at livestock auctions in Oklahoma January 12, March 2, 2011 Initial weight 592 lbs. At arrival Weighed, received individual identification Allowed ad libitum access to hay and water until processing

46 Experimental Design 3 2 factorial (elastration [Band] vs. surgical emasculation [Knife] vs. Steer [Steer] metaphylaxis [MM] vs. pull and treat protocol [NP]) Pen was experimental unit Cattle were blocked by time period (January and March arrival) Performance and economic data analyzed using PROC GLM, and health data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX

47 Materials and Methods Processing h post-arrival Vaccination against: Clostridialtoxins including Clostridium tetani(covexin8; Intervet/Schering-Plough, Millsboro, DE) IBR, PI 3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; Boehringer Ingelheim, St. Joseph, MO) Internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA) Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicrate banderloops (Ross Manufacturing, St. Francis, KS) according to randomization Calves randomized to receive metaphylactictreatment were administered tulathromycin(1.1 ml/cwt) (Draxxin; Pfizer Animal Health, New York City, NY)

48 Cattle were visually appraised for signs of BRD twice daily for the first 14 d and once/d thereafter Cattle needing evaluation were pulled from home pen, and treatment was administered according to Table 1 with corresponding post-treatment intervals (PTI) if rectal temperature> F Table 1: Treatment Protocol MM NP Drug PTI Drug PTI Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d 2 nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d 3 rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d 4 th Treatment - - Baytril -

49 Results

50 The effects of treatment on feedlot performance with deadsand removals excluded 1 Knife Band Steer P-value Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE 4 Steer vs. Bull 5 Knife vs. Band 6 Pens Total head Initial BW, lb Day 28 BW, lb < MM vs. NP 7 Final BW, lb < Day 0-28 ADG, lb/d < DMI, lb/d G:F, lb/lb < Day 0-42 ADG, lb/d < DMI, lb/d < G:F, lb/lb <

51 % Bulls Steers % Bulls Steers 13 DMI, lb/lb P < ADG, lb/d P < % G:F, lb/lb Bulls Steers P < 0.01

52 The effects of treatment on feedlot health Knife Band Steer P-value Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP Steer vs. Bull 5 Knife vs. Band 6 MM vs. NP 7 Pens Total head Day 0-28 First treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Total treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Deads, % of pen Off-trials, % of pen Day 0-42 First treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Total treatments, % of pen < <0.01 Deads, % of pen Off-trials, % of pen

53 % Bulls Steers % Knife Band Total treatments, % of pen P < 0.01 Total treatments, % of pen P = Total treatments, % of pen % MM NP P < 0.01

54 The effects of treatment on feedlot economics Knife Band Steer Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE 4 vs. Steer Bull 5 P-value Knife vs. Band 6 MM vs. NP 7 Pens Total head Processing cost, $/hd <0.01 Medicine cost, $/hd <0.01 Feed cost, $/hd < Total cost, $/hd Cost of gain, $/lb < Breakeven, $/lb <

55 % Bulls Steers MM NP Cost of gain, $/lb P < 0.01 Bulls Steers Breakeven, $/lb % Bulls 1.16 Steers P < Bulls Steers MM NP

56 Conclusions Steers had improved feedlot performance, and lower morbidity resulting in lower breakevens MM did not improve breakevensand cost of gain of steers No difference in feedlot performance or economics due to castration methods MM improved breakevensand cost of gain in bulls 600 lbbulls should be purchased about 6% back from steers ~ $8-$10 in today s market

57 Castration trials Method Banding vs. knife cut No difference in technique, prefer knife cut Timing Arrival-best Delayed 2 weeks too many in hospital Delayed to 1st reimplant - staggy

58 Effects of intact males on arrival Bulls have 140% higher morbidity rates than steers Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers Bulls have 163% higher railer rates than steers Renfro et al., 2004

59 It s gonna be a wreck when..

60 Effects of intact males on arrival Bulls have 140% higher morbidity rates than steers Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers Bulls have 163% higher railer rates than steers Renfro et al., 2004

61 Method Banding vs. knife cut Castration trials Prefer knife cut Lidocaine vs. no lidocaine Timing Arrival -best Delayed 2 weeks too many in hospital Delayed to 1st reimplant - staggy

62 Treatments 1. CONTROL (CNT) 2. BAND (BND) 3. BAND W/ LIDOCAINE (BNDL) 4. SURGERY (SURG) 5. SURGERY W/ LIDOCAINE (SURGL)

63 INTERACTION BETWEEN WEEKS---DMI BND VS SURG DMI vs Method use, Method*Week Interaction DMI P= P= P= BND SURG P= WEEK BND VS SURG LENGTH OF STUDY P= LIDO VS NO LIDO LENGTH OF STUDY P=0.2289

64 INTERACTION ADG BND VS SURG ADG Band vs. Surgery a 4 ADG b b c c 1 0 CNT BND BNDL SURG SURGL BND VS SURG P= LIDO VS NO LIDO P= CNT VS CASTRATED P=.0001

65 Effect of cattle sex at arrival on health and performance of high risk calves during a 44-day receiving period L. O. Burciaga, Ph.D. Student

66 Weight (kg) Performance of bulls and steers during a 44-d receiving period Bulls Steers LSM P-value d d d d ADG (kg) d d d d <0.0001

67 Health of bulls and steers during a 44 d receiving period Bulls Steers P-value Morbidity, % < Mortality, % Only one treatment, % < Two or more treatments a, % < Medicine cost ($) <0.0001

68 Summary Bulls castrated on arrival have been associated with decreased performance and increased health risk compared with cattle that arrive as steers. Because many cow/calf producers do not castrate their calves before sale, more research is needed to address different management procedures that might have a positive impact on the health and performance of calves arriving as bulls. This is especially important because of the documented (Renfro et al., 2004) negative impact that cattle arriving as bulls has on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics, resulting in decreased hot carcass weight, yield grade, and quality grade.