Every cattle producer deals with down cows at some point in their career. The fate of the animal – in most cases – is grim. This episode of After the Abstract: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast features Dr. Brian Lubbers and Dr. Brad White evaluating a research article that explores how to increase the probability that a down beef cow gets back up. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the show!
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! The experts begin the show by discussing the pros and cons of pulling bulls during/after the breeding season. Dr. Phillip Lancaster continues this edition of Cattle Chat by relaying all the known information about Leaky gut – a new and peculiar disease to cattle production. BCI student LuisFeitoza closes out the episode by talking with Dr. Brad White and Dr. Brian Lubbers about the capabilities of modern ultrasound machines in veterinary medicine. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
2:19 Removing Bulls: How to keep a tight calving window while adding value to cull cows
7:15 Leaky Gut: What it is, why it occurs, how it affects cattle, physical symptoms and prevention
15:12 Ultrasonography: capabilities, weaknesses and scenarios
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Over the last couple of years, artificial intelligence and machine learning have become a part of daily life for most people. From self-driving cars to chatbots, they can be seen all around society – even in veterinary medicine. In this edition of Herd Health: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast, Dr. Bob Larson and Dr. Brad White discuss AI’s role in diagnosing diseases now and in the future. Thanks for listening and enjoy the show!
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! All calves require some sort of spring/summer processing. Two of the more painful events during these times include dehorning and castration. In this episode, the experts invite K-State college of veterinary medicine student Jake Schumacher to share the progress of his research on how maternal bovine appeasing substance affects calf pain levels and performance when processing. The show then progresses with Dr. Phillip Lancaster talking through different ways to approach summer grazing. To end this edition of Cattle Chat, Dr. Brian Lubbers and Dr. Bob Larson engage in a conversation regarding the quick and sudden death of calves. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
3:13 Pain management: Research on alleviating pain in young calves during processing
8:42 Grazing Forages: Alternative grasses
13:21 Sudden Calf Death: Blackleg, bacteria and overeating
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
With most cows out on grass, now is the perfect time for producers to start thinking ahead and formulating rations for later in the year. A major component of those rations is protein. Dr. Phillip Lancaster and Dr. Brad White explain all things protein – including microbial protein synthesis and how nutritionists calculate the available nitrogen within a diet – during this episode of Diving into Diets: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast. Thanks for listening and enjoy the show!
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Most nutritionists consider water the most significant nutrient cattle consume, so correctly managing this finite resource becomes critical for successful beef production. Joe Gerken, K-State assistant professor of Wildlife and Outdoor Enterprise Management, begins the episode by discussing various pond fundamentals with the hosts. Gerken and the experts then progress the show by answering a listener’s question about providing a separate water source for calves. Lastly, this week’s Cattle Chat concludes with interesting dialogue around different pond management strategies. Thanks for tuning in, and enjoy the episode!
4:21 Pond Basics: life expectancy, maintenance, refurbishment, sediment and health
10:31 Listener questions: Does water availability affect rate of gain in calves? & Should I provide my calves a separate water source from my cows?
15:14 Pond management: fencing, development programs, adding fish and blue green algae
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Bob Larson, DVM, PhD Reproductive physiologist and Epidemiologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University RLarson@vet.k-state.edu
Cattle producers recognize that summer is the season to battle flies on cattle. Several types of flies cause irritation and pain, reduce weight-gain, and transmit disease-causing germs, but each of the fly species have unique characteristics that should be considered before the battle begins. As in many contests, knowing your opponent is critical to increase chances for success. Four of the most common fly pests for cattle in North America are horn flies, face flies, stable flies, and horse flies.
Horn flies are a biting insect that takes more than 30 blood meals a day and spend almost all their time on the backs, sides, and poll of cattle. When horn fly numbers become very large, cattle spend a lot of time and energy fighting them rather than grazing – therefore weight gain and milk production are reduced. In addition, these flies have been implicated in the spread of mastitis in beef herds. These flies seem to prefer adult cattle more than suckling calves, but when populations get very high, calves will be affected also. Female horn flies deposit eggs in fresh manure and the larvae survive much better in the manure of grass-fed cattle compared to the manure of cattle consuming grain rations. Eggs hatch from the manure pat within a week and then live as a pupae in the soil under the manure pat. The entire life-cycle takes about 10 to 20 days depending on the weather and because each female horn fly will lay as many as 400-500 eggs in her lifetime, the population can become very large in a very short period of time. Horn fly numbers usually peak in early summer and then decline as heat and dryness decrease the suitability of manure pats for the immature larvae and pupae. Late in the summer or in early fall, the conditions may improve for the immature horn flies and the population can increase again.
Because horn flies spend almost all their lives on cattle, applying chemical pesticides to cattle can be an effective method to expose the flies to lethal doses. Several different types of pesticides that are safe to use on cattle are effective against horn flies, but some horn fly populations are resistant to the pyrethroid class of chemicals. If you used a pyrethroid insecticide last year and you were not satisfied with the level of horn fly control you achieved, then it may be wise to switch to a different chemical class for your pesticide this year. Backrubbers and dust bags can be a very economical method to apply pesticides if the cattle are forced to use them daily to get to water or mineral feeders. Proper placement and frequent re-filling are necessary for this control method to work well. Insecticide ear tags can be an effective method to deliver pesticide to your cattle on a daily basis, but resistance to pyrethroid tags can be a problem unless several general rules are followed: delay tagging until fly populations reach about 200 flies per animal, tag all cattle in the herd by following the instructions on the label, rotate the insecticide class so that cattle aren’t exposed to the same chemical class year-after-year, and remove the tags at the end of the fly-season. Sprays and pour-on products that are re-applied every 7 to 21 days can also be effective and these products have the advantage that timing of re-application can be adjusted based on the fly population with the obvious disadvantage of needing multiple applications. Larvicide (larvae-killing) products that are included in mineral or feed will pass through to kill fly larvae and pupae in the manure pat. To be effective, cattle must consume these oral products daily so that all fresh manure has an effective dose before the female horn fly lays her eggs. Because newly hatched horn flies will migrate to find cattle, control is most effective if all the fresh manure within several miles of your herd is effectively treated. Non-chemical control of horn flies focuses on decreasing the contact between cattle and new flies emerging from manure pats by dragging pastures to speed drying and exposure of larvae and pupae to dry heat.
Face flies don’t actually bite cattle, but the female has sharp mouth parts similar to a rasp that she uses to damage the skin so that she can suck up liquids such as eye secretions, discharge from the nose, or blood from wounds. The face fly is different from the horn fly in that this species spends very little time on cattle and spends most of itslife resting on fence posts, plants, or other vegetation. Because they spend so little time on cattle, treating cattle with pesticides is less likely to result in the flies receiving a lethal dose. It does appear that daily application of pyrethroid insecticides directly on the face of cattle does reduce the time that face flies will spend on cattle. Backrubbers and dustbags that effectively apply insecticide to the face as well as ear tags are methods that can provide daily insecticide exposure. Because pour-ons and sprays are not applied daily, these methods of chemical application are not likely to reduce face fly problems. Like the horn fly, face fly females also lay eggs in fresh, grass-fed manure pats and the immature stages live in the manure pat and in the nearby soil. Because face flies can fly long distances, dragging pastures to break up manure pats and using oral insecticides in the mineral or feed may not be as effective as for horn flies which migrate less.
Stable flies are blood-suckers that mainly feed on the front legs of cattle. These flies have a very painful bite, and even a small population can cause a great deal of discomfort and cattle will try to avoid them by stamping their legs, bunching together, or standing in water. Stable fly eggs are deposited in rotting plant matter mixed with moist manure or soil such as around hay feeding sites, the edges of feeding aprons, and around hay stacks. Because the fly eggs aren’t laid in fresh manure, the oral larvicides do not provide effective control. Applying insecticides with a spray or mist at weekly intervals is the only chemical control that is effective for pasture cattle. Sanitation and clean-up of wasted feed around hay rings, feedbunks, and fence rows is an important non-chemical method of stable fly control. For cattle confined to a feedlot, fly predators (also called parasitic wasps) can be used because they effectively kill immature flies. But because these types of non-stinging wasps are not strong fliers, they are not effective in pasture situations. Parasitic wasps must be purchased and released in areas likely to have fly eggs about once a month during the entire fly season.
Horse flies are very large and have a painful bite. After a blood meal, female horse flies will lay their eggs on plants near ponds or streams. Because horse flies are large and hardy, chemical pesticides seem to have little effect, and because they do not lay their eggs in manure or decaying plant matter, sanitation is not effective as a control method.
Complete elimination of all flies is not possible, but by knowing about different fly pests that will confront your cattle, effective control strategies can be planned. Because fly populations will vary from one year to the next based on factors such as rainfall, grazing density, and previous exposure to chemical insecticides, fly control strategies have to be flexible and may need to be changed.
A producer brings a depressed calf and its dam to Dr. Matt Miesner from a herd with a history of scours. Initially, he thought it was a cut-and-dry case. After more investigation, the opposite started to become true. Dr. Brad White discusses this tricky situation with Dr. Miesner on this episode of Bovine Science with BCI.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Ever wondered when its time to cut your losses and ship that sick calf out of the yard? Lilli Heinen joins the show to help answer that question and talk about her research concerning case fatality risk. The hosts continue the show by discussing important things for 4-Hers to remember when caring for their beef projects from nutrition to record keeping. Dr. Brian Lubbers wraps up this edition of Cattle Chat by discussing his key takeaways from a recent Presidential Advisory Council on Combatting Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria meeting. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
4:26 Case Fatality Risk
13:29 Considerations for 4-H calves
18:49 Dr. Lubber’s update on a recent PAC CARB meeting
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Phillip Lancaster, MS, PhD Ruminant nutritionist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University palancaster@vet.k-state.edu
Enteric methane from rumen fermentation accounts for more than 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions from beef production. Cattle consuming forage diets have approximately twice the methane yield (6.5 vs 3.0% of feed intake) compared to cattle on high-grain diets. Thus, the cow-calf and stocker sector of the beef industry account for 90% of methane emissions and 85% of total greenhouse gas emissions of beef production. However, a large portion of the methane emissions can be offset by carbon sequestration with proper grazing management.
How does the beef industry work to further reduce methane emissions from grazing cattle? In a previous article, we talked about feed additives to reduce enteric methane emissions. There has been a lot of research on different feed additives such as seaweed, nitrate, lipids, and 3NOP with a lot of interest in some of these compounds. Feed additives work by capturing hydrogen before methanogenic bacteria can convert it to methane or by inhibiting methanogenic bacteria directly and can reduce methane emissions 20 to 50% when fed to cattle daily. However, feed additives that must be fed daily are not practical in grazing cattle production systems.
One strategy that could be used to reduce methane emissions of grazing cattle is to plant certain forage species with anti-methanogenic properties. Many plant species (legumes, forbs, and herbs) produce bioactive compounds that reduce enteric methane emissions. These compounds include tannins, saponins, phenolic acids, flavonoids, xanthones, lignans, and stilbenes, which vary in concentration among forage plants.
There are 2 forms of tannins, condensed and hydrolysable, found in plants and plants differ in the amount of each form they produce. Condensed tannins reduce methane emissions but can also reduce protein digestibility, nutrient absorption, and animal productivity. However, this does not happen in every case. Hydrolysable tannins have a direct effect on methanogenic bacteria without reducing forage digestion, and thus, may be more practical. Saponins are a subclass of terpenoid compounds that inhibit rumen ciliate protozoa that produce hydrogen. Without the hydrogen available, methanogenic bacteria cannot convert carbon dioxide to methane. However, saponins can contribute to stable foam in the rumen that can cause bloat, thus the proportion of saponin-containing plants in the pasture needs to be limited. The other secondary compounds (phenolic acids, flavonoids, xanthones, lignans, and stilbenes) have demonstrated ability to reduce methane emissions but less is known about the mode of action in the rumen.
Plant species vary in the concentration of bioactive compounds they contain and thus varying degrees of methane-reducing ability. Some plant species that have been evaluated for their effect on methane production are listed in Table 1. The lotus spp. includes plants like birdsfoot trefoil and narrowleaf trefoil which are nitrogen fixing legumes and would provide other benefits to the pasture besides methane reduction. Sainfoin and sulla are other nitrogen-fixing legumes that would be beneficial in pastures and could also reduce methane emissions. All of these legumes have minimal to no bloat risk. Biserrula is an annual legume that contains phenolic compounds and saponins. Chicory and plaintain are perennial herbs with the ability to reduce methane emissions. Many of these plant species can enhance animal performance through increasing digestibility of the forage consumed and increasing protein intake in the case of legumes. However, caution should be used when establishing these forage species in pastures as grazing pastures with high (>40%) proportions of these plant species and the bioactive compounds they contain can reduce productivity of growing animals.
Grass forage plants contain minimal to no bioactive compounds with methane reducing capability. Thus, including legumes and forbs in pasture plantings is necessary to increase the consumption of bioactive compounds by grazing cattle. Plant biodiversity in pastures is not only sustainable from wildlife and soil health perspective but may also reduce the methane emissions. Many of the plants with methane-reducing ability are not commonly grown for grazing. One thing to note is that many of the studies calculating the methane emissions for the cow-calf and stocker sectors utilize data based on common forage species. Therefore, operations that include high levels of biodiversity of forage plants may have less than expected methane emissions.
Table 1. Pasture forage species with bioactive compounds that reduce methane emissions from cattle
Two months into the calving season, multiple calves within a 40 head herd randomly die with no clinical signs. Dr. Scott Fritz and Dr. Brad White get to the bottom this mystery on this week’s edition of Bovine Science’s Tox Talk.
The toxicology website and Bovine Sciences with BCI podcasts have been sponsored in part through a veterinary services grant that Dr. Scott Fritz, Dr. Steve Ensley and Dr. Bob Larson have received to share more toxicology information and examples for people to understand what to submit and how to submit. Another part of that grant has been working with people and producer in the field.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Dan Moser begins this week’s episode answering a listener’s question regarding the accuracy of a young sire’s EPDs. The hosts continue the show replying to rapid fire questions on how to be successful as a student and young professional within the beef cattle business. Moser carries on this edition of Cattle Chat by responding to more questions about genetics and breed associations. Dr. Bob Larson, Moser and the other experts conclude by discussing when producers should take action after noticing something out of the ordinary within their cowherd.
3:12 EPD Accuracy Question
11:25 Rapid Fire Questions for students and industry professionals
16:20 Breed Associations and how they update their EPDs
20:41 Investigating Spontaneous Genetic Changes
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Dr. Brian Lubbers and Dr. Brad White deep dive into a recently published paper titled: Comparison between a complete preconditioning programme and conventional conduct on behaviour, health and performance of young bulls from small cow-calf herds.
After the Abstract is recorded with the goal of assisting veterinarians in the interpretation of scientific literature. This podcast is not an endorsement of specific practices and medical decisions should only be made in consultation with your veterinarian.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! The show kicks off with Dr. Bob Larson updating listeners on a recent visit taken to rural practices by Veterinary Training Program for Rural Kansas participants. Dr. Dustin Pendell continues the show by asking the other hosts economic questions about cover crops in cattle production. The episode winds down with Dr. Clay Breiner from Cross Country Genetics and the hosts discussing what to watch during the breeding season from cows in estrus to mineral consumption and bull health.
3:10 Veterinary Training for Rural Kansas program
11:33 Economic questions relating to cover crops
16:36 Checking the cowherd during breeding season
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Bob Larson, DVM, PhD Reproductive physiologist and Epidemiologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University RLarson@vet.k-state.edu
Bulls play a tremendously important role on cattle ranches. They require a significant monetary investment associated with purchase price, housing costs, feed, and veterinary care. They also serve as a source of risk to the ranch, with poor reproductive performance having a great impact on percentage of the cows that become pregnant and the average calf age at weaning. In addition, poor performance of progeny due to poor genetic contribution to the herd impacts calf value and desirability of heifer offspring as replacement females. Careful attention to selection based on predictions of genetic contribution to desirable traits, management to protect health, breeding soundness examination to remove bulls with questionable breeding ability, and appropriate bull-to-cow breeding ratios are required to optimize the investment ranchers make in their bulls.
The cost of bulls to a ranch can be calculated in several ways: the total bull cost per year, bull cost per cow exposed, or bull cost per calf weaned. I think the most informative measure is cost per calf weaned. This calculation includes the initial purchase price, the salvage value, and costs for feed, housing depreciation, and veterinary expenses. In addition, it considers the number of years the bulls are used, the number of cows exposed per bull (the cow-to-bull breeding ratio), and the percentage of cows exposed that wean a calf. Because many factors other than purchase price impact the cost of bulls per calf weaned, the actual cost of bulls per calf weaned can vary greatly between herds.
The primary way that bulls improve herd income is to be highly fertile so that nearly all the cows become pregnant and they become pregnant early in the breeding season so that there is a front-end loaded age distribution at the time calves are weaned. Of secondary importance is the genetic value of the progeny for growth and carcass characteristics for feeder calves, and for longevity and fertility on the available forages for replacement females.
Selection tools such as EPDs are used to identify new herd bulls that add value due to their genetic contribution to progeny performance, while breeding soundness examinations and appropriate husbandry are the tools to measure and assure fertility.
A breeding soundness examination of bulls (BSE) is a thorough examination of the bull to estimate his ability to get a high percentage of exposed cows pregnant in a short period of time. The need for BSEs is based on the fact that many prospective breeding bulls are infertile, subfertile, or unable to mount and breed successfully, and examination prior to the breeding season reduces the risk of breeding failure due to bull problems. The overall effect of BSE is to eliminate many infertile bulls and to improve the genetic base for fertility within the herd and breed. Although individual situations vary, national reports indicate that 10% to 20% of bulls will fail a thorough BSE (and another 10% that pass a BSE will perform poorly in the breeding pasture).
An important reason to carefully examine all bulls for breeding soundness prior to every breeding season is to be able to safely expose as many cows as possible to each bull. A high cow to bull ratio increases the number of offspring from superior sires and decreases total bull costs per calf weaned. Limited research indicates that mature bulls with high reproductive capacity can be exposed to as many as 50 cycling cows in single-bull pastures but fewer cows per bull in breeding pastures with multiple bulls, with the national average of about 30 cows per bull. Young bulls should be exposed to fewer cows than mature bulls. For bulls less than three years of age, a commonly used rule of thumb is that a bull can successfully breed as many cows as his age in months (e.g. a 15 month old bull should be exposed to no more than 15 cows). Although a high ratio of cows to bulls helps to reduce bull costs, it also exposes the herd to poor reproductive performance risk if the bulls fail to maintain good semen quality and quantity, or if bulls have reduced desire or ability to mate cows in heat due to injury, illness, or low libido.
Regardless of how many cows are allotted to each bull, it is important to carefully monitor bulls during the breeding season. Bulls should be evaluated frequently to detect any early signs of injury, excessive weight loss, or illness; and if problems are detected, affected bulls should be replaced by fertile bulls. While many matings occur at times that are not convenient for observation, witnessing successful matings ensures that a bull is able to mount and breed cows successfully.
During the breeding season and for the rest of the year, basic husbandry and feeding skills are important for bull care. Bulls need appropriate housing to provide protection during severely cold or hot weather – both of which can lead to temporary fertility problems. In addition, bulls should be maintained in good body condition throughout the year.
Because bulls are so important for the genetic progress and reproductive efficiency of cattle herds; and because bulls account for a significant expense, excellent bull selection and care are critically important for optimum herd management. Bulls should be selected based on their ability to get a lot of cows pregnant early in the breeding season that will result in the birth of calves that will be high-value when they are sold. Once bulls are selected for the herd, they need to be fed to maintain good body condition and housed to protect them from injury risk. In addition, bull fertility and mating ability should be evaluated prior to each breeding season and monitored throughout breeding.
Breeding season has begun for some and is just around the corner for others. Learn more about how stress affects fertility and the success of an artificial insemination or embryo transfer project in this edition of Herd Health. Dr. Brad White and Dr. Bob Larson discuss the causes of stress, management techniques that will help mitigate it and solutions that should lower a herd’s stress level.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Feed, Protein Tubs, Fertilizer-contaminated water
Mechanism
Rumen urease cleaves urea making ammonium, that reaction causes the rumen pH to climb. At pH >8, the reaction selects for ammonia that is absorbed and transported to the liver. The liver’s ability to metabolize ammonia is overwhelmed leading to hyperammonemia.
Signs
Rapid onset (20-60 minutes) of uneasiness, bloat, dyspnea, recumbency, paddling, cyanosis, and death. The rapid progression from consumption to death precludes the formation of any reliable lesions. Rumen pH will typically remain elevated for ~24, pH paper is a cheap and effective way for in-field evaluation.
Treatment
Treatment is based on lowering the pH and diluting the urea concentration. The most effective way to accomplish this is a rumen infusion of acetic acid (vinegar) and cold water. Animals should be triaged with treatment directed towards clinical animals that are not yet recumbent. Survivors generally have no lasting effects.
Diagnosis
Post-mortem diagnosis is based on ammonia concentrations in ocular fluid as well as rumen pH. Rumen content should be frozen ASAP because the ammonia will volatize off the sample.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Primarily a water deprivation syndrome – cattle can consume a significant amount of salt if fresh water is available. There are reports of mineral-starved cattle overeating mineral supplements with sodium used as an intake limiter.
Mechanism
As animals become dehydrated, the sodium concentration in the brain increases. The problem is upon rehydration, water follows the sodium into the brain resulting in cerebral edema and death to neurons.
Signs
Clinical signs are the same for lead poisoning and polioencephalomalacia and rooted in the central nervous system. Blindness is a hallmark of the syndrome and can help rule out causes of neurologic disease in cattle. Ataxia, head pression, recumbency, and death are also associated with the progression of clinical signs.
Treatment
The classic therapy for polio cases is injectable thiamine. Thiamine is a general neuro-protectant but is less effective in water deprivation cases than polio and lead encephalopathy. Slow rehydration of affected animals is the best approach. This can be a challenge on a herd basis and veterinarians and producers are often forced to get creative. Unlimited access to water will precipitate clinical signs and IV fluid therapy is not practical. Allowing water to run on a flat surface and forcing animals to drink slowly is ideal. Fluid deficits should be corrected over 12-24 hours.
Diagnosis
Diagnosis is based upon clinical signs, lack of a response to thiamine, characteristic lesions in the brain, and elevated brain sodium levels. It is important to submit both fixed and fresh brain in these cases as formalin-fixed brain is useless for sodium evaluation.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT ToxicologistBeef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Alfalfa is the most common source of phytoestrogen exposure in the US. Other clover species can contribute to the total exposure.
Mechanism
Phytoestrogens bind to estrogen receptors in the animal leading to multiple effects.
Signs
The most economically important clinical sign associated with phytoestrogens is infertility. This is especially true in pre-pubescent animals that are exposed and can lead to life-long infertility by disrupting the estrogen-influenced maturation process. Prolapses have also been associated with feeding high levels of phytoestrogens. Phytoestrogens do not cause abortion.
Treatment
Remove the suspect source.
Diagnosis
Phytoestrogen evaluation of suspect feed source. Clinical improvement following removal.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Plants are typically fertilized, and drought-stressed, occasionally herbicide-treated plants can become more palatable and cause problems
Plants (Johnson grass, corn stalks, Sudan grass), water (especially with fertilizer contamination)
Mechanism
Rumen reduces nitrate to nitrite. Nitrite reduces the iron in heme forming methemoglobin that can’t carry oxygen – the affected animal become anoxic. Clinical signs will occur at 30-40% methemoglobin, death can occur when methemoglobin is >70%.
Signs
Rapid onset (30 minutes to hours) of weakness, bloat, ataxia, recumbency, cyanosis, and death. The rapid progression from consumption to death precludes the formation of any reliable lesions. Pregnant animals that survive the acute disease may abort 3-7 days after exposure.
Treatment
Methylene blue is the traditional antidote administered at 10 mg/kg of a 1% solution. There are withdrawal concerns for the use of methylene blue due to it being a potential carcinogen, FARAD should be consulted. Remove the suspect source.
Diagnosis
Brown discoloration of venous blood. Serum is a good antemortem sample, ocular fluid is the best post-mortem sample. Rumen content is not a good post-mortem sample as the rumen microbes will continue to degrade nitrate. Methemoglobin rapidly decays after collection so its diagnostic utility is limited.
1% nitrate in forage can result in acute deaths, 0.5% nitrate feed should not be fed to pregnant animals. 100 ppm in water can result in clinical signs. Laboratories that do feed and water analyses use different units to report the nitrate content, these units are different and it is imperative to recognize the differences.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Mycotoxins are secondary fungal metabolites that are produced by mold that colonizes damaged grains. Grains are the most common source, but occasionally certain forages can also be an issue.
Mechanism
There are only a few mycotoxins with recognized clinical effects, FDAs guidance tables are presented here.
Aflatoxin contamination has legal requirements for the sale of commodities
Guidance levels – fumonisins
Advisory levels – vomitoxin (DON)
No action, guidance or advisory levels for ochratoxin A or zearalenone have been established by the FDA in animal feeds (these 2 mycotoxins are handled on a case-by-case basis.
Action levels for total aflatoxins in livestock feed
Class of Animals
Feed
Aflatoxin Level
Finishing beef cattle
Corn and peanut products
300 ppb
Beef cattle, swine or poultry regardless of age or breeding status
Cottonseed meal
300 ppb
Finishing swine over 100 lb.
Corn and peanut products
200 ppb
Breeding cattle, breeding swine and mature poultry
Corn and peanut products
100 ppb
Immature animals
Animal feeds and ingredients, excluding cottonseed meal
20 ppb
Dairy animals, animals not listed above, or unknown use
Animal feeds and ingredients
20 ppb
Food and Drug Administration guidance levels for fumonisins in animal feeds.
Mycotoxin
Use
Total fumonisin
5 ppm (1 ppm) no more than 20% of diet)
Equids (horses, mules, donkeys) and rabbits
20 ppm (10 ppm) (no more than 50% of diet)
Swine and catfish
30 ppm (15 ppm) (no more than 50% of diet)
Breeding ruminants, breeding poultry and breeding mink
60 ppm (30 ppm) (no more than 50% of diet)
Ruminants older than three months being raised for slaughter and minks raised for pelt production
100 ppm (50 ppm) (no more than 50% of diet)
Poultry being raised for slaughter
10 ppm (5 ppm) (no more than 50% of diet)
All other species or classes of livestock and pet animals
The species, age, and health of the animal as well as the level and duration of exposure to the mycotoxin, will determine the magnitude of the effect of exposure. The effects can be subtle; including reduced weight gain and minor behavioral abnormalities such as feed refusal, or the effects can be severe, including reproductive dysfunction, organ failure, and death. Depending upon the magnitude of the exposure (duration and concentration), healthy animals can recover if the contaminated feed is removed from the diet.
Advisory levels for vomitoxin (DON) in livestock feed
Class of Animal
Feed Ingredients & Portion of Diet
DON Levels in Grains or Grain By-products and Complete Diet**
Ruminating beef and feedlot cattle older than 4 months
Grain and grain by-products*
10 ppm (10 ppm)**
Ruminating dairy cattle older than 4 months
Grain and grain by-products not to exceed 50% of the diet*
10 ppm (10 ppm)**
Ruminating beef and feedlot cattle older than 4 months, and ruminating dairy cattle older than 4 months
Distiller’s grains, brewers grains, gluten feeds, and gluten meals*
30 ppm (10 ppm beef/feedlot)** ( 5 ppm dairy)**
Chickens
Grain and grain by-products not to exceed 50% of the diet
10 ppm (5 ppm)**
Swine
Grain and grain by-products not to exceed 20% of the diet
5 ppm (1 ppm)**
All other animals
Grain and grain by-products not to exceed 40% of the diet
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Batteries, paint, older oils and greases, some solders, multiple others.
Mechanism
Lead has a variety of effects on different biochemical processes in the body. Generally, lead binds sulfhydryl groups deactivating some enzymes, lead competes with calcium ions replacing calcium in bone and altering conduction in nerves and muscle, lead also alters vitamin D metabolism and interferes with GABA activity in the CNS.
Signs
Clinical signs vary by species. In ruminants, acute lead exposures cause neurologic signs. Blindness is maybe the most recognizable and reasonably consistent sign. Other clinical signs include depression or hyperesthesia, ataxia, seizures, aggression, head pressing, muscle fasciculations, and death. Gastrointestinal signs including bloat and diarrhea may be appreciated.
Treatment
The classical antidote for lead poisoning in large animals is Ca-EDTA. Ca-EDTA can liberate lead from bone causing an increase in blood lead and worsening clinical signs. Chelation therapy in food animals is not recommended for multiple reasons including poor response to treatment, significant supportive care, and significant residue issues. In addition, there are no FDA-approved antidotes for food animals, thus, FARAD should be consulted prior to use. Regulations regarding lead exposure in food animals varies by state. The state veterinarian should be contacted, and some states will quarantine entire herds until blood lead concentrations drop below specified thresholds.
Diagnosis
Diagnosis is heavily dependent upon elevated concentrations of lead in the body. Ante-mortem testing is easily accomplished with whole blood. Postmortem sampling should include liver and kidney lead concentrations. Histologically, lead exposure can cause polioencephalomalacia, it is important to consider water deprivation/salt poisoning, and elevated dietary sulfur in clinical cases.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Water: surface water (ponds especially in late fall or drought years) in some areas of the country and ground water (wells) in others.
Feed: Some co-products are recognized sources like DDGs, molasses, etc.
Poultry litter
Mechanism
Dietary sulfur is converted by the rumen microbes to hydrogen sulfide gas. H2S is eructed and inhaled and probably absorbed across the rumen wall. Hydrogen sulfide is a systemic poison that interrupts cellular metabolism. Tissue with high energy demand, like the brain, are first affected.
Signs
Classical clinical signs include ataxia, blindness, and head pressing. These typically occur 1-4 weeks after starting cattle on a high-sulfur diet.
Treatment
Thiamine is the treatment of choice for polio cases. Corticosteroids, NSAIDs, and diuretics have been recommended but their efficacy is unclear, and the adverse effects of their use may outweigh any benefit they have.
Diagnosis
Response to thiamine administration is a strong diagnostic indicator. Histologic lesions are identical to those caused by lead toxicosis and water deprivation/sodium ion toxicosis. Brain sodium and liver and kidney lead concentrations should be analyzed to rule out these other causes. Thiamine has shown to be beneficial in cases of lead encephalopathy.
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
CCA (chromated copper arsenate) treated lumber, especially after burning, cattle seem to find the ashes palatable.
Arsenic-containing insecticides
Mechanism
Most heavy metals exert their toxic effects by substitution for other metals. Arsenic is no different. Trivalent arsenicals interrupt the TCA cycle while pentavalent arsenicals uncouple oxidative phosphorylation. Both mechanisms interrupt cellular respiration and produce an energy deficit at the cellular level. Rapidly dividing cells and those with a high energy demand are first affected.
Signs
Clinical signs and risk are heavily dependent upon the valence of the arsenic involved. Generally, clinical signs are severe and associated with the gastrointestinal system. Colic, weakness, and diarrhea, often hemorrhagic, are common. Sever neurologic signs can predominate in acute exposures to readily available sources. Ataxia, staggering, recumbency are common in these cases.
Treatment
The classic antidote for arsenic poisoning is dimercaprol in companion animals but is not overly effective after clinical signs are observed so it’s use in clinical cases is limited. Thioctic acid is more effective in cattle but is not approved for use in food animals. FARAD should be consulted if used. Excretion is rapid and, unlike lead, arsenic is readily cleared after exposures.
Diagnosis
Diagnosis is heavily dependent upon elevated concentrations of arsenic in liver and kidney. Both organs should be submitted and it is important to recognize that given the rapid excretion of arsenic, animals that live for long periods after exposure may not have identifiable concentrations in these organs. Diagnosis can be supported by histologic examination of tissues, especially the kidney and gastrointestinal tract. Suspect material can also be analyzed.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Dr. Brad White, Dr. Phillip Lancaster and Dr. Brian Lubbers cover a lot of ground on this week’s episode from international guests to summer grazing. Dr. Conrad Schelkopf joins the hosts and rounds out the episode discussing his research on the electronic nose.
3:13 Takeaways from the discussions with New Zealand visitors
8:05 Managing pastureland this summer
11:58 Phillip’s update on a recent meeting about grazing at the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
17:36 The electronic nose
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!