Designing Herd Health Programs to Hit Your (Risk) Targets v Dale M. Grotelueschen, DVM, MS Great Plains Veterinary Educational Center University of Nebraska Clay Center, Nebraska

Begin With the End in Mind Calving Distribution % calf crop – number calves weaned divided by number cows exposed Pounds weaned per cow exposed Price/pound Cost of production

Prebreeding Breeding Gestation Preweaning Weaning Precalving Calving Postcalving Market/Remove

Fetal programming Effects of maternal nutrition on productivity of offspring Maternal nutrient restriction from early to mid-gestation can lead to fetal growth retardation, with long term effects on offspring growth, physiology and metabolism (sheep). Progeny of nutritionally restricted females (during gestation) had lower pregnancy rates (heifers) and lower carcass weights (steers) Vonnahme, KA et al, JAS 2006 84:3451-3459 Funston, Martin, et al

Setting priorities in beef operations

Goals of a Preventive Health Plan Is reduction of need for antimicrobials one of them?

Practical Applications of Biosecurity & Biocontainment in Beef Cattle Health Programs v Dale M. Grotelueschen, DVM, MS Beef Veterinary Operations, Pfizer Gering, NE 308-436-4491

Reduced risk for disease, control or elimination of disease Biosecurity – the outcome of all actions used to prevent disease agent entry into a unit of interest. Biocontainment – the outcome of all actions resulting in control of a disease agent in a unit of interest Dargatz, Vet Cl FoodAn 18 (2002) 1-5.

Calf diarrhea (Neonatal enteritis) prevention with the Sandhills System D. Smith, D. Grotelueschen, T. Knott, S. Ensley Applied Biosecurity and Biocontainment

Neonatal Calf Diarrhea A complex association of factors related to immunity (resistance) to diarrhea disease and exposure to the causative agent or agents Is not a random event because herds at higher risk possess characteristics leading to increased/decreased incidence of the disease. Healthy and diarrheic calves shed organisms. Diarrhea-causing organisms are widespread in cattle populations, including herds without scours problems DeRycke, et al, Ann. Rech. Vet. 1986;17(2)159-168

What should our goals be? Herd level prevention of calf diarrhea Little/no incidence/treatment of calves for diarrhea Avoid costs Treatment Labor Death Reduced weaning weights Source: Dr. John Groves, Elton, MO

Immunity Immunity Window of vulnerability Scours Exposure Age

Immunity Scours Exposure Age in Days Immunity 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Age in Days

Exposure-Diarrhea Agents Cows are shedders Calves are multipliers

Multiplier Effect

Key Risks and Interventions to Reduce Exposure RISK: Environmental buildup of scours agents over time in calving area INTERVENTION: Planned move of pregnant animals prior to environment becoming high risk for exposure. RISK: Older calves shed lots of scours agents to younger calves INTERVENTION: Age segregation (1 week) of calves.

Sandhills Calving System Cattle Flow Move pregnant cows in. Calve 2 weeks from date of first calf born Leave pairs Leave pairs Leave pairs Leave pairs Move pregnant Cows. Calve 1 week. Finish calving Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5

Time Time Conventional

Sandhills Calving System Planning Trees Northeast Northwest S N A B C D W Trees & Building E Move In March 1 Move In March 14 March 21 March 28 640 A. 125 A. 75 A. 250 A Leave pairs Design a cattle flow plan Planned move of pregnant females Age segregation of calves

Disease Control Fundamentals Prevent Transmission Biosecurity Biocontainment Eliminate Agent Increase Immunity Dargatz, et al, Vet Clin Food An 18 (2002) 1-5 Smith, Vet Clin Food An 18 (2002) 157-175

Reduced risk for disease, control or elimination of disease Biosecurity – the outcome of all actions used to prevent disease agent entry into a unit of interest. Biocontainment – the outcome of all actions resulting in control of a disease agent in a unit of interest Dargatz, Vet Cl FoodAn 18 (2002) 1-5.

Cow-calf producer behavior according to NAHMS Beef 2007–08 Biosecurity on U.S. Beef Cow-calf Operations http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/beef0708/Beef0708_is_Biosecurity.pdf

Source of Beef Female Replacements Percent Standard Percent Standard Source Heifers Error Cows Error Raised on the operation 83.0 (2.0) 75.6 (1.1) Purchased 17.0 (2.0) 24.4 (1.1) Total 100.0 100.0 p 41 24 24

NAHMS Beef 2007-2008 24 states,79. 6% of US cow-calf operations, 87 NAHMS Beef 2007-2008 24 states,79.6% of US cow-calf operations, 87.8% of US beef cows, 2,872 operations Animals that left the operation for a show, fair, rodeo, or other event in the last 12 months 5.4% of operations 53.6% routinely isolated upon return 33.1% never isolated upon return USDA, APHIS, NAHMS, Beef 2007-2008 Report, Part 2, p 78 25 25

New additions Any cattle

Testing prior to arrival

Quarantine

Considerations for designing health protocols Risk assessment What infectious diseases are my animals exposed to and how likely are they to become exposed in the future? Which need to be addressed? Risk tolerance/risk aversion What is my tolerance to health risks? How much risk am I willing to take?

Relative health risk for calves -Variable between operations Birth Birth- Branding Ship- Postarrival Wean- Postwean Postwean- Ship Prewean- Wean Branding- Prewean Postarriv- Harvest

Multifactorial Nature of Feedlot BRD—Risk Factors Naïve animals Weaning Commingling BVD immune suppression & disease Colostral immunity Shipping Trace mineral deficiency Other nutritional factors Adverse weather Animal disposition Age Other factors

Association of colostral immunity with health and performance in beef calves Calves with lower colostral immunity were 1.6 times more likely to get sick and 2.7 times as likely to die before weaning. Calves with higher colostral immunity weighed 7.38 pounds more at 205 days of age (IgG1 levels of at least 2700 mg/dl). Threshold of optimal colostral immunity (IgG1 levels) was higher than previously reported values. Dewell, R, et al JAVMA (2006) 228:6, 914-921

Inadequate Colostral Immunity Preweaning Risk of death Risk of sickness ADG Feedlot Risk of respiratory disease Source: Wittum, et al AJVR 56:9 1995

Effect of calving difficulty on immunoglobulin concentration, interval from calving to standing & mothering score As calving difficulty increased, time to standing increased and colostral immunity decreased Calving Difficulty Score* 1 2 3 Significance Level Interval from calving 39.8(44)** 50.9(9) 84.3(18) 0.01 to standing (min) Mothering score 1.2(57) 1.5(11) 1.5(25) 0.02 Calf serum IgG1 (mg/dl) 2401.1(43) 2191.0(8) 1918.5(22) 0.00 Calf serum IgM (mg/dl) 194.8(43) 173.0(8) 135.6(22) 0.05 * No cesarean sections were necessary, and abnormal presentations were excluded from the data set. ** Numbers in parentheses are the number of observations Source: Odde

Effect of condition score at calving on interval from calving to standing, colostrum production, & immunoglobulin concentration As BCS increased, time to standing decreased and colostral immunity (IgG1 increased) Condition Score 2 3 4 5 6 Signif Level Interval from calving to standing (min) -- 59.9(8)* 63.6(30) 43.3(35) 35.0(1) 0.24 Colostrum production (ml) 750.0(1) 1525.0(2) 1111.5(13) 1410.9(11) -- 0.19 Calf serum IgG1 (mg/dl) 1787.6(1) 1998.1(8) 2178.8(33) 2309.8)34) 2348.9(1) 0.23 Calf serum IgM (mg/dl) 159.5(1) 145.9(8) 157.2(33) 193.1(34) 304.1(1) 0.05 * Numbers in parentheses are the number of observations. Source: Odde

Relationship among BRD Treatment, Slaughter Lung Lesions and ADG in Feedlot Cattle 469 steers, 3 years Mean days on feed - 273 d 35% were treated for BRD Wittum, et al. JAVMA 209(4):814-817, 1996

Relationship among BRD Treatment, Slaughter Lung Lesions and ADG in Feedlot Cattle 138 (28%) No Lung lesions 338 (72%) Adg .167 greater in cattle with no lung lesions (p<0.01) 45.6 lb difference for feeding period Wittum, et al. JAVMA 209(4):814-817, 1996

Impact of Preconditioning on Feedlot Performance Morbidity Cattle in preconditioning programs were 4X less likely to need treatment Morbidity rates of beef steer calves at two health assessment intervals and for the entire feeding period.

Profitability of Preconditioning: 11 Year Indiana Case Study Objectives: Assess profitability of preconditioning calves Determine factors associated with returns from preconditioning Owner goal: To supply a higher quality calf to the feedlot and to capture the increased value to improve profitability Hilton, Bov Pract 45:1;40-50, 2011

Profitability of Preconditioning: 11 Year Indiana Case Study Average return to labor & management (1999-2009), actual prices received and actual costs used $80.70 per head for preconditioning Range $26.04-$116.48 per calf per year Preconditioning enterprise was profitable each year Hilton, Bov Pract 45:1;40-50, 2011

Profitability of Preconditioning: 11 Year Indiana Case Study Factors related to profit Adg Days on feed Cost of gain Feed cost of gain Health: 0.09% (1/1,103) morbidity 0.27% (3/1,103) mortality Hilton, Bov Pract 45:1;40-50, 2011

Profitability of Preconditioning: 11 Year Indiana Case Study Returns to preconditioning Added weight sold 63% of return to preconditioning Preconditioning sales price advantage 37% of return to preconditioning Owner time spent after sorting, day of weaning, 2007-2009 Profit divided by total hours of labor $54.74-$130.22 per hour Hilton, Bov Pract 45:1;40-50, 2011

Rank of Reproductive Traits on Profitability #1 Percent calf crop weaned #2 Calving distribution Harlan Hughes

Top 2 production factors with highest impact on cow/calf profitability % calf crop weaned Number of calves weaned divided by number of cows exposed Pounds weaned/cow exposed Pounds of calf weaned divided by number of cows exposed AND COST OF PRODUCTION

Calving Distribution 70% 21% 6% 40% 30% 10%

Average Calf Weaning Weight by 21 Day Calving Period No. Calves Avg WW Diff from 1st 21 days 1st 21 days 150 556 2nd 21 days 94 516 -40 3rd 21 days 23 468 -88 NDSU Dickinson Research & Extension Center, 2002

Reproductive effect of acute BVD around time of insemination Heifers (75 hd) seronegative to BVD and IBR 3 Management Groups (randomized) Controls: Controls that did not become infected during pregnancy Group 1: Infected by contact with PI cow and calf 4 days after insemination Group 2: Infected intranasally 9 days before insemination Non-qualifying heifers removed (47 hd remained) Intranasal exposure with 1 ml viremic blood and 1 ml viremic serum from the PI cow and calf Induced calving at 275 days gestation McGowan et al, Vet Rec (1993) 133, 39-43

Reproductive effect of acute BVD around time of insemination Conception Rate 20 d after insemination Pregnancy Rate 77 d after insemination Calving Rate 275 d after insemination Controls that did not become infected during pregnancy 79% (11 of 14)a 79% (11 of 14)c 71% (10 of 14)* Group 1 infected by contact with PI cow and calf 4 days after insemination 60% (9 of 15)b 33% (5 of 15)c 33% (5 of 15) Group 2 infected intranasally 9 days before insemination 44% (8 of 18)c 39% (7 of 18)c 39% (7 of 18) * one control heifer aborted between d 77 and d 107, not associated with BVD. a,b: p=0.25 c: all p<0.05 McGowan et al Vet Rec (1993) 133, 39-43 3 Management Groups Controls: Group 1: Infected by contact with PI cow and calf 4 days after insemination Group 2:

Dale M. Grotelueschen, DVM, MS Thank You! Dale M. Grotelueschen, DVM, MS 308-641-6658 dgrotelueschen@gpvec.unl.edu