This author is not trying to get into the debate of promoting an animal identification plan but to provide information or location where more information can be obtained about such a plan.
U.S Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman stated “All of these animal health issues point to the importance of the development of a National Animal Identification System, which is a key priority for USDA… Together, we must develop a system that works.”
The United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) has endorsed a plan to implement a national system for animal identification as a work in progress.
The U.S. animal Identification Plan (USAIP), as it is called, defines the standards and framework for implementing a phased-in national food animal and livestock identification program.
The National Animal Identification Development Team that was comprised of a diverse group of livestock industry participants including producers, producer’s organizations, breed associations, marketers, processors, and state, federal animal health officials were given the task to develop a system to assist in rapid animal traceback in the event of an animal health emergency.
To stay informed of the rapidly changing proposal and the implementation of a USAIP plan, producers and others with interests in the industry are encouraged to use http://www.usaip.info/. Many of the rules and details of the proposed plan will become more evident as it moves through the political process.
Another source of information can be obtained from Electronic ID, A User’s Manual published by Beef, December 2003.
This issue of Beef was solely dedicated to examining animal identification (ID) using radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology. It was designed to add to the industry awareness of animal traceback in general and RFID technology specifically. The RFID technology appears to have the inside track to become the foundation of such a traceback system.
The December 2003 issue included articles detailing the technology, its providers, the specifications, and to help the livestock producers evaluate and understand electronic ID.
Kansas State University in cooperation with Beef magazine did an extensive survey of the products and services offered by various companies in the animal identification business. These results may be found at http://www.beefstockerusa.org/.
A Guide for Electronic Identification of Cattle produced by Kansas State University Agriculture Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service is an excellent publication providing an overview of radio frequency technology and its application in a national identification program for the beef industry.
Establishing common data sharing standards is becoming critical to the future of the segmented beef industry. A collation of five leading agriculture data service companies have announced plans to create this industry’s first data exchange standards.
The five participating companies:
Initially, the Beef Information Exchange will facilitate rapid and secure sharing of data required for a national identification system to address potential mandatory identification and traceback requirements. The system may be expanded to accommodate a greater variety of production data. Establishing common data-sharing standards creates a standard information platform, which will allow for greater operational efficiency, reduced supply uncertainties, and potentially lower costs.
The time has come to learn more about an animal identification plan and make it work in our segmented industry.
1. Cattle Health Report
A National Institute for Animal Agriculture Publication
2. A Guide for Electronic Identification of Cattle.
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
3. Electronic ID: A User’s Manual
Beef Magazine, December 2003
4. Beef Production Medicine 2004
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
Most procedures performed during the processing of feeder cattle are geared toward the prevention of problems and, therefore, economic savings. However, implanting gives a direct enhancement of performance and, therefore, economic gain.
When administered properly, implants make money for the cattle feeder. It is estimated that an implant provides a return on investment anywhere from 10:1 to 20:1. That variation is due to such factors as market price, size, weight and genetic potential of the feeder animal, and type of ration.
In any case, implanting feeder cattle is a sound economic practice that should be performed for financial gain.
Implants act to improve feed efficiency (pounds of feed required to produce a pound of gain in body weight) and rate of gain (pounds of body weight gained per day).
They are considered to be anabolic agents, enhancing protein metabolism and muscle production in the animal. Though the mechanism of action is not yet completely understood, it is felt that these agents regulate naturally produced compounds in the body to enhance growth and muscle production. In effect, they may stimulate a more consistent daily production level of these compounds, as they tend to be erratic by nature.
Our industry faces a continuing challenge to educate the consumer as to the wholesomeness and safety of our product. Public concern about implanted beef plus the concept and promotion of “natural” beef-have clouded the realistic picture.
These concerns are unjustified and the issue is one of public relations and education, rather than one of health.
Consider these facts: 168 pounds of implanted beef contains the same amount of estrogen as one egg. Four ounces of beef contain 1.59 nanograms (1 billionth of a gram) of estrogen. An adult man averages 130,000 nanograms of estrogen production daily, and an adult woman produces an average of 480,000 nanograms of estrogen daily. The point is, not that these relatively higher levels of estrogen in eggs or humans are harmful (this is not the case), but that the level of estrogen in implanted beef is minuscule.
A second or reimplant is often considered, especially in “longer day” cattle-those fed more than 100 to 150 days. Many variables have to be considered when deciding whether or not to reimplant, and there is no single answer.
Consideration must be given to the type of cattle being fed (sex, breed, weight, condition on arrival, genetic potential, etc). In addition, the layout and facilities of the feedyard may or may not be conducive to reworking the cattle for reimplanting.
Many reimplanted cattle weigh in excess of 800 pounds and the working facilities should be adequate to safely and effectively handle these larger cattle. Excessive stress or injuries could defeat the economic gain of the reimplant.
If reimplanting is performed, consider this trip through the chute an opportunity to perform other health-related procedures. These might include a respiratory virus revaccination to abate late day respiratory pulls; a seven-way clostridial revaccination for enterotoxemia and blackleg; or a pour-on or dip for lice.
Proper technique is vital to the efficacy and performance of the implant. An experienced, conscientious person “at the head” when processing cattle will make the feedyard money. Special attention to sanitation and proper placement is imperative.
Currently, available implants are required to be placed subcutaneous on the dorsal surface of the ear outside the annular cartilage ring. After implantation, the implant should be easily palpable and away from any potential trim sites. Avoid any blood vessels or previous implants and ear-tag first so as not to disrupt an implant site.
We encourage processing crews to use sharp implant needles, change them when dull, and lay the needle on a disinfectant-soaked sponge between usages. Do not dip the needle in a liquid disinfectant as this moistens the inner core, causing partial dissolution and “gumming” of implants.
It is helpful to run occasional checks to evaluate implant technique. This may be done either at initial processing, when doctoring cattle, at reimplantation, or on a post mortem check at an abattoir. Crushing or bunching implants may result in over-absorption and decreased duration of efficacy. Abscessed implants, walled-off implants, and implants placed in the cartilage of the ear may result in under-absorption and decreased efficacy.
The buller syndrome sometimes is tied to implants. Though there may be some relationship, this problem probably is more related to technique, rather than brand of implant used. In our experience, the buller syndrome is a multi-factorial problem—more tied to season of the year, weather patterns, type, age and breed of cattle, bunk management and pen space per head.
Thursday, July 1, 2004
|The Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex (BRDC) results from a complex series of steps: (1.) stress, (2.) viral infection, and (3.) bacterial infection.|
Stress can be caused by routine procedures such as castration, dehorning, nutrition, weather (change of environment), congregation (co-mingling) and transportation. Stress causes the entire body to be more prone to infection. This occurs by allowing disease causing organisms easier route of entry and by disarming some of the body’s important defense mechanisms against disease.
Viruses that commonly take advantage of the situation usually include IBR and BVD. Other viruses such as BRSV and PI3 sometimes can cause problems. Although viruses may cause death, the major role they play in the BRDC is to allow the third factor-bacteria-to gain a foothold and possibly lead to death.
Mannhemia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Haemophilus somnus account for
the majority of bacterial infections of the BRDC.
This complex series of steps causing the BRDC with large economic losses with high morbidity and mortality resulted in the development of pre-conditioning.
Pre-conditioning programs vary considerably, but generally include weaning, training to eat and drink from troughs, vaccination, and treatment for internal and external parasites, castration, and dehorning. Pre-conditioning is a general term used in the beef industry to basically describe the time period and management of calves which takes place at the farm/ranch before arrival into the feedyard. Therefore, pre-conditioning can be defined as the preparation of feeder calves for the marketing and shipment to the feedyard. Pre-conditioning is intended to give the calf time to return to normal behaviors, improve feed intake, and allow time for the immune system to rebound from weaning stress and immunization. (Bartle, Steve ADM Alliance Nutrition) Don’t confuse or compare the term pre-conditioning towards backgrounding. Backgrounding is a similar approach; however, the vaccinations and other management procedures take place at a separate facility-not at the farm/ranch.
American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP 1968) defined the following areas in pre-conditioning:
Historically, most pre-conditioning programs supported a 21-30 day weaning period; however, more recent efforts have been directed toward increasing the number of days weaned before shipment and improving management procedures on the ranch. The Texas Ranch to Rail data shows it take at least 45 days for calves to develop independent behaviors, achieve consistent intake targets, and to develop immunity from vaccination. Therefore today, most programs require a 45-day weaning period. Several pre-conditioning programs have also been replaced by individual programs developed at the producer level and by commercial programs promoted by biological firms. (Radostits, Otto Third Edition)
The vaccination requirements also vary but most include modified live vaccines such as IBR, BVD, PI3, BRSV, Mannheimia haemolytica leukotoxoid, and clostridial bacterins. In any pre-conditioning program, it’s important to meet beef quality assurance standards and all label directions should be followed regarding injection location, dosage, needle size, and timing of vaccination including boosters.
Different alliances of which this author works with have different requirements but a general outline includes:
The nutrition and management during the pre-conditioning period is dependent upon the producer’s objective. Oklahoma State University (extension publication F-3031) list several possible objectives:
· Optimize condition and health for the pre-condition phase
· Produce added weight at low cost
· Market calves through a program requiring pre-conditioning for best market potential
· Minimize the risk of digestive upsets and disease
· Achieve a specific target weight.
Suggested Nutrient Recommendations for Stressed Calves
(Adapted from 1996 Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle)
Dry Matter,%------------------- 80-85
NEm, Mcal/lb------------------- 0.82-0.90
NEg, Mcal/lb-------------------- 0.46-0.56
Crude Protein,%----------------- 12.5-14.5
Vitamin A, IU/lb------------------- 2500
Vitamin E, IU/lb------------------- 50-100
Management practices that minimize weaning and arrival stress will result in fewer calves requiring health treatments. The importance about prevention of disease, particularly the BRDC, does not only affects the morbidity (health treatments) and mortality (deathloss) but data also shows the impact on average daily gain, feed efficiency and carcass merit.
Health and Performance Effects of Preweaning Management
(Reprinted from Cattle Health Tech)
How does preweaning management influence disease resistance, average daily gain, feed efficiency, quality grade, and yield grade of carcasses? This question has been addressed in various research projects over the course of several years.
1. Compared to fresh, unweaned calves, calves that were preweaned and fed for 30-45 days at the ranch had:
2. Compared to fresh, unweaned calves, calves that were limit creep fed (1-3 lb/head/day) for the last 60 days had:
3. Compared to polled steers, calves that must be castrated and/or dehorned/tipped at the feedyard generally had:
4. Compared to nonvaccinated calves, calves that were vaccinated for IBR, BVD, PI3, BRSV and Pasteurella on the ranch had:
The Texas A & M Ranch to Rail program has consistently shown an impact of health on the ability of steers to express their genetic potential and the costs associated with sick cattle beyond the cost of medicine. Healthy steers had an average of $93.20 more favorable return than sick steers in the 20003 program and an average net return over a five-year period has been $37.54 per head.
In the feedyard, questions arise daily concerning medication programs for respiratory disease. It’s the single biggest disease problem.
When faced with a history of no response to medication, we spend very little time on the actual medications. The more important consideration is determining management procedures aimed at prevention and treatment of diseased cattle.
Following are some rules of treatment that need to be observed when evaluating a
feedyard health program. They also are good guidelines when training new personnel to pull and treat sick cattle.
Pull Sick Animals Early
The first and foremost rule of treatment is to pull sick animals early, pull appropriately and treat aggressively.
If sick animals are not pulled from the pen before respiratory disease becomes an advanced problem, medication response will generally be very poor.
Good pen riders are able to spot animals just as they are breaking with pneumonia. This corresponds to the latter stages of the incubation period of disease and is before the animal actually shows clinical signs. It takes a certain eye to be a good pen rider; some
cowboys seem to have it instinctively; others have developed it over the years.
Pull Animals Properly
Animals must be pulled for sickness appropriately. If sick animals are not pulled properly, they will not get the hospital care they need, hospital pens will become needlessly overcrowded, and the doctor crew will become overworked.
Heavy pulls do not always coincide with proper pulls. Sometimes, heavy pulls from a pen occur, leaving some sick animals and pulling some with no obvious signs of illness. If heavy pulls occur in a pen (greater than 25%), then steps should be taken toward
What does treating aggressively mean? It means that when an animal is pulled initially for respiratory disease, it is treated with strong therapeutic agents (antibiotics) that will stop pneumonia at its earliest stages, and not allow further progression of the disease
process. This will effectively decrease total treatment days, decrease the number of retreatments and, of course, prevent high death losses.
With good therapeutic agents and supportive care, sick animals will not have to be rested between treatments, if additional treatment is deemed necessary. Antibiotics are stressful on the animal’s system, so supportive measures are used to stabilize the adverse changes that occur following treatment, as well as treat the disease.
Supportive care includes such drugs as (1) B-complex vitamins, to stimulate the appetite and replenish body loss, (2) antihistamines to open swollen, narrowed airways, and
(3) electrolytes to replace body water loss as well as body electrolyte loss.
The primary objective of supportive care is to counteract the serious side effects of disease and subsequent changes referable to antibiotic usage. Supportive care also includes nutritional support in the form of fresh hay and high-energy rations, plus hospital
management aimed at prevention of overcrowding and further stress.
All drugs used in beef cattle, including antibiotics and supportive medications, have a specific purpose and use. Your consulting veterinarian is the best source of information on proper use of these drugs. The feedyard health crew must be well versed on the
proper use of drugs because a drug used improperly is sometimes worse than no medication at all.
Visual inspection of sick animals in the hospital is absolutely necessary. Occasionally feedyard personnel will look at the thermometer and forget to look at the animal.
To prevent this oversight, all animals should be given a severity code, such as severely sick, moderately sick or mildly sick. This simple system encourages the health crew to assign a uniform code to the sickness of all animals.
This coding system allows sequential assessment of sick pulls and progress through the hospital treatment program. Secondary benefits of this system allow various persons to treat the animal on subsequent days and assess response to treatment. Also, it allows assessment of sick animal pulling.
If you are using an antibiotic that requires daily administration, treatment of sick animals should be continued for at least three successive days. This can be accomplished with one shot or administration or with three successive days of treatment. In the end, this will decrease the treatments and the pen deaths following treatment.
Research and experience has shown that only one or two days of treatment has detrimental side effects. Antibiotics can be changed during these three-day periods, but not after only one day of treatment.
Alternate routes of administration or increased dosages can be used on the second day of treatment when added response is needed on this treatment day. If treatment response is inadequate after two days of therapy, then alternate treatments or increased dosages should be considered.
You never want to give up on the treatment of an animal, but you should realize the limitations of antibiotic therapy and strike a happy median between cost-benefit and continued treatment. It is very discouraging to treat an animal day after day, only to have it die after an extended treatment period.
As a general rule, treatment of a sick animal for six continuous days or three treatments will constitute adequate treatment. Continued treatment often will result in a chronically sick animal or a dead animal.
The last rule of treatment is the keeping of clear, concise and accurate records. The feedyard runs on paperwork. Because of the large numbers of cattle that any feedyard handles and many sick animals that are treated, records are absolutely essential. These records will not only provide bookkeeping services, but will allow you to assess treatment response. Records must be (a) easy to fill out, (b) supply the appropriate information, and (c) be easily compiled for further evaluation.
These rules are formulated from sound medical practice and experience. Some of them vary depending on your particular antibiotic or medication program. But they will, in most cases, result in a successful medication program.