Preventing death in feedlots
The KSU study, conducted from 1992 to 2004 on eight different Kansas feedlots, showed death loss increasing by 0.0467 of a percent per year. For heifers, the figure increased at 0.0672 of a percent. From the stress of shipping and severe weather conditions to the fight against pathogens and disease, feedlot cattle are susceptible to many factors that can lead to morbidity and mortality. Sudden death is a common term on feedlots. Attempts to identify the cause of sudden death in feedlot cattle are often met with variable results. Pneumonia, abscesses and clostridial diseases contribute to many sudden fatalities; while toxins, anaphylaxis and systemic infections are other possible sources for loss. The economic costs of sick cattle in the feedlot can add up. The costs for visits to the hospital pen pulls money out of the production chain that results in lower prices for feeder cattle. The cattle feeder must adjust the bid for feeder cattle downward to cover the costs from sick cattle. Vaccination programs, keeping resistance high through good nutrition, biosecurity, early detection and treatment of disease and a number of other management techniques are keys to keeping cattle healthy. Another area of prevention that continues to be researched is probiotics, or beneficial bacteria. Because antibiotic resistance arises in bacteria at an alarming rate, much research has focused on finding alternative treatments that do not involve the use of antibiotics. Alternative non-antimicrobial products such as direct-fed microbials and/or yeast sugars (Bio-Mos) have been identified as possible intervention strategies. Multiple field trials have demonstrated reductions in salmonella and E. coli in beef cows supplemented with Bio-Mos. A recent study conducted at Schooten and Sons Custom Feedyard in southern Alberta, Canada evaluated the impact of adding Bio-Mos in the receiver diets of beef cattle on performance and health characteristics. A group of 902 mixed-breed, newly weaned beef cattle were randomly assigned to pens at the feedlot during October and November 2006. Pens were then assigned to treatment, control or Bio-Mos. The control diet consisted of barley silage, barley and a commercial vitamin/mineral premix. CTC was included in the standard diet. The Bio-Mos treatment included the control diet plus the addition of 20 grams of Bio-Mos per head per day for the first 20 days post placement. The cattle were individually weighed upon entry into the feedlot and again on implantation. All treatments and mortality were recorded by treatment and by pen. Feed intake was monitored on a daily basis and total dry matter intake was calculated for each pen for the trial period The researchers found that the cattle on the Bio-Mos diet had an improved average daily gain of 2.07 versus the control 1.54 pounds per day. The Bio-Mos group also showed a reduction in feed conversion (8.5 versus 12.5), mortality (0.44 percent versus 2.66 percent) and total number of treatments (89 versus 204). The cost difference based on total treatment cost was $9.24 for the pens fed the Bio-Mos diet and $17.58 for the pens fed the control diet. With the recent Kansas State research, feedlot operations across the country are starting to realize the increase and cost of feedlot deaths. While many feedlot deaths are unexplainable, cattle producers can use vaccination programs, good nutrition, biosecurity, early detection and treatment of disease and management techniques to help combat the sudden deaths. Some producers are turning to new technologies such as Bio-Mos as a natural approach to improving beef production economics. But no matter what management technique or nutritional application an operation finds successful, every cattle producer knows healthy cattle are more profitable. For more information, call 605-692-5310, or visit www.alltech.com. |
