Arkansas - Agricultural Communication Services - University of ...

Arkansas Animal Science Department Report 2001
Examined were proportion of treatment successes, failures,
BRD relapses, average medication cost, ADG and cost
per pound of gain. The cost per pound of gain included feed
cost, medication, processing and chute charges. Average daily
gain, medication cost and cost per pound of gain were statistically
analyzed by ANOVA (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC).
Differences in the percentage of treatment successes, failures
and relapses for home and hospital pen were analyzed with a
Goodness of Fit Test using the chi-square distribution.
Experiment 2. One-hundred-twenty-six stocker calves
(heifers, bulls and steers) with weights ranging from 213 to
415 lb, were purchased from several salebarns in Central
Arkansas and delivered as a group to the University of
Arkansas Beef Cattle Research Facility in Savoy. Initial processing
was identical to that for experiment 1, with the exception
that no anthelmintic treatment was given. All treatments
and randomizations were identical to experiment 1, however,
the calves were only observed for illness for 14 days rather
than 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed in a similar
fashion to experiment one.
Results and Discussion
Implications
Results of this study indicate that in a small facility
with well-managed hospital and home pens there is no advantage
to maintaining a hospital facility. It should be noted,
however, that there is an increased amount of labor involved
with handling and re-handling of sick animals in the home
pen. It is much easier to observe and re-treat animals that are
kept in a hospital facility. Regardless of method used, there is
no substitute for good management when it comes to enhancing
treatment success for BRD in a stocker or feedlot facility.
Literature Cited
Lechtenberg, K. F., et al. 1998. Vet. Clinics of N.A.: Food
Animal Practice, pp. 177–197.
Smith, R. A., et al. 1993. Agri-Practice: Roundtable
Discussion, Part 1, 14(8):10.
USDA. 1999. USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH, National Animal
Health Monitoring System. Ft. Collins, CO. #N327.0500.
The probability of treatment success, treatment failure
and relapse from BRD of animals recovering in the hospital
pens did not differ from those that were returned to their
home pen after initial treatment (Table 4; P = 0.30). The initial
clinical illness scores were not statistically different
between the groups indicating that the level of illness was
about equal for each group (Table 5). Average medication
cost, ADG and cost per pound of gain were not significantly
different between the groups (Table 5). Results were the same
for experiment 2 (Tables 6 and 7) in that there were no statistical
differences between groups for any trait. There was a
higher percentage of successes in the hospital group than the
home group in experiment 1 (94% vs 76%), while in experiment
2 there was a higher percentage of successes in the
home group than in the hospital group (84% vs 75%); however,
these percentages were not statistically different
between groups for either experiment.
The hospital pens at this facility were well managed,
providing adequate space and optimum nutrition. In addition,
the additional labor cost for sorting out animals from their
home pen to assess treatment success was not calculated.
Labor cost calculation would have been difficult since there
were different numbers of people working each day and each
person is at a different pay scale. It is speculated that if this
could have been easily done, there may have been an economic
advantage to keeping the animals in the hospital during
recovery. The effect on morbidity to pen mates from sending
treated animals back to their home pens was not evaluated.
One also needs to consider there were only 21 animals in
each lot. This provided adequate room and bunk space and
translates into a relatively low stress situation. In a dry lot
with 80 to 100 animals per pen the results may have been different.
Additional studies would be indicated to assess these
effects.
80