Search

Aims Our objective was to determine how injectable antimicrobials affected populations of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in feedlot cattle. Methods and Results Two arrival date blocks of high-risk crossbred beef cattle (n = 249; mean BW = 244 kg) were randomly assigned one of four antimicrobial treatments administered on day 0: sterile saline control (CON), tulathromycin (TUL), ceftiofur (CEF) or florfenicol (FLR). Faecal samples were collected on days 0, 28, 56, 112, 182 and study end (day 252 for block 1 and day 242 for block 2). Hide swabs and subiliac lymph nodes were collected the day before and the day of harvest. Samples were cultured for antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. The effect of treatment varied by day across all targeted bacterial populations (p ≤ 0.01) except total E. coli. Total E. coli counts were greatest on days 112, 182 and study end (p ≤ 0.01). Tulathromycin resulted in greater counts and prevalence of Salmonella from faeces than CON at study end (p ≤ 0.01). Tulathromycin and CEF yielded greater Salmonella hide prevalence and greater counts of 128ERYR E. coli at study end than CON (p ≤ 0.01). No faecal Salmonella resistant to tetracyclines or third-generation cephalosporins were detected. Ceftiofur was associated with greater counts of 8ERYR Enterococcus spp. at study end (p ≤ 0.03). By the day before harvest, antimicrobial use did not increase prevalence or counts for all other bacterial populations compared with CON (p ≥ 0.13). Conclusions Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in feedlot cattle is not caused solely by using a metaphylactic antimicrobial on arrival, but more likely a multitude of environmental and management factors.

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the primary animal health concern facing feedlot producers. Many antimicrobial mitigation strategies are available, but few studies have compared feedlot performance during both the receiving and finishing periods following application of different antimicrobials used as metaphylaxis at arrival. The objective of this study was to compare antimicrobial metaphylaxis methods on clinical health and growth performance across both the receiving and finishing periods. A total of 238 multiple-sourced steers in two source blocks were used in a generalized complete block design. The four treatments included: 1) a negative control, 5 mL of sterile saline injected subcutaneously (CON); 2) subcutaneous administration of florfenicol at 40 mg/kg of BW (NUF); 3) subcutaneous administration of ceftiofur in the posterior aspect of the ear at 6.6 mg/kg of BW (EXC); and 4) subcutaneous administration of tulathromycin at 2.5 mg/kg of BW (DRA). The morbidity rate for the first treatment of BRD was decreased for the DRA and EXC treatments compared to CON and NUF (P

In the feedlot, there can be a decrease in dry matter intake (DMI) associated with reimplanting cattle that negatively affects growth performance. This study was conducted to determine the mechanisms causing a decrease in DMI after reimplanting and identify a strategy to mitigate the decrease. Crossbred steers (n = 200; 10 pens/treatment; initial bodyweight [BW] = 386 ± 4.9 kg) were used in a randomized complete block design experiment. Cattle were implanted with Revalor-IS on day 0. Treatments included a Revalor-200 implant on day 90 before feeding with the following management practices imposed: 1) steers were returned to their home pen immediately after reimplant (PCON); 2) steers were placed in pens and restricted from feed and water for 4 h (RES); 3) steers were walked an additional 805 m after reimplant and then returned home (LOC); 4) steers were restricted from feed and water for 4 h and walked an additional 805 m (RES + LOC); 5) steers were given an oral bolus of Megasphaera elsdenii (Lactipro; MS Biotec, Wamego, KS) and were restricted from feed and water for 4 h, and then walked an additional 805 m (LACT). One hundred steers were given an ear tag to record minutes of activity (ESense Flex Tags, Allflex Livestock Intelligence, Madison, WI). As a percentage of BW, DMI was 5% greater (P = 0.01) from reimplant to end for PCON vs. RES, LOC, and RES + LOC treatments. Likewise, as a percentage of BW, DMI was 6.6% greater (P = 0.03) from reimplant to end and 4.0% greater (P = 0.05) overall for the PCON treatment vs. the LOC treatment. Overall, DMI as a percentage of BW was 3.3% greater (P = 0.02) for PCON vs. RES, LOC, and RES + LOC treatments. There was an increase in G:F from reimplant to end (P = 0.05) for RES + LOC vs. the LACT treatment. From these data, we conclude that restricting cattle from feed and water for 4 h after reimplanting did not alter subsequent DMI. Increasing locomotion had the greatest negative effect on DMI and growth performance. Management strategies to decrease locomotion associated with reimplanting would be beneficial to DMI and overall growth performance of finishing beef steers.