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

2. 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

3. Prebreeding Breeding Gestation Preweaning Weaning Precalving Calving Postcalving Market/Remove

4. 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 :
Funston, Martin, et al

5. Setting priorities in beef operations

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

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

8. 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.

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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. Immunity
Immunity
Window of vulnerability
Scours
Exposure
Age

13. Immunity Scours Exposure Age in Days Immunity
Age in Days

14. Exposure-Diarrhea Agents
Cows are shedders
Calves are multipliers

15. Multiplier Effect

16. 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.

17. 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 Lot Lot 5

18. Time
Time
Conventional

19. 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

20. 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)

21. 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.

22. Cow-calf producer behavior according to NAHMS Beef 2007–08
Biosecurity on U.S. Beef
Cow-calf Operations

23. Source of Beef Female Replacements
Percent Standard Percent Standard Source Heifers Error Cows Error
Raised on the operation (2.0) (1.1)
Purchased (2.0) (1.1)
Total
p 41 24 24

24. NAHMS Beef 2007-2008 24 states,79. 6% of US cow-calf operations, 87
NAHMS Beef 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 Report, Part 2, p 78 25 25

25. New additions
Any cattle

26. Testing prior to arrival

27. Quarantine

28. 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?

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

30. 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

31. 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,

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

33. 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 (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) (43) (8) (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

34. 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
Signif
Level
Interval from calving
to standing (min) (8)* 63.6(30) 43.3(35) 35.0(1) 0.24
Colostrum production (ml) 750.0(1) (2) (13) (11)
Calf serum IgG1 (mg/dl) (1) (8) (33) )34) (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

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

36. 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): , 1996

37. 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.

38. 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

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

40. 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

41. 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,
Profit divided by total hours of labor
$54.74-$ per hour
Hilton, Bov Pract 45:1;40-50, 2011

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

43. 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

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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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:

48. Dale M. Grotelueschen, DVM, MS
Thank You!
Dale M. Grotelueschen, DVM, MS