The hardest cattle health decisions often live in the gray zone. Nowhere is that truer than with bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in cattle that aren’t clearly high risk, but don’t look entirely safe either. A new survey suggests that when cattle fall into this medium-risk category, veterinarians and feedlot managers might be working from different mental playbooks.
The study, published in Translational Animal Science, examined how veterinarians and feedlot managers assess BRD risk and decide whether to use metaphylaxis when risk is uncertain. They surveyed 25 veterinarians consulting for a combined more than 600 feedlots and 30 feedlot managers. While both groups rely heavily on experience, the results show meaningful differences in how risk is perceived, what outcomes are expected and which factors ultimately tip the decision toward treatment.
Veterinarians and Producers Hold Different Expectations for BRD Outcomes
BRD remains one of the most costly and consequential diseases in feedlot cattle, driving losses through mortality, morbidity, treatment costs and long-term performance impacts. Metaphylaxis is widely accepted for cattle at high risk, but less straightforward when cattle fall somewhere in the middle.
In the survey, respondents were asked to consider hypothetical groups of medium-risk cattle and estimate expected morbidity and mortality if metaphylaxis were not used. Veterinarians consistently anticipated worse outcomes than feedlot managers. On average, vets expected higher percentages of sick cattle and greater death loss, while managers’ expectations were lower and more variable.
That difference matters. Expected disease burden strongly influences whether metaphylaxis is justified. If one party anticipates substantial losses and another expects manageable disease, alignment becomes difficult from the beginning.
Key Factors Used to Decide on Metaphylaxis
While both veterinarians and producers described metaphylaxis decisions as multifactorial, the survey revealed clear differences in which risk signals each group emphasizes most when cattle fall into the medium-risk category.
Veterinarians tended to emphasize factors tied to biological vulnerability and population-level disease risk, including:
- Health history of the cattle, particularly prior illness, vaccination status and consistency of backgrounding
- Degree of commingling, with mixed-source cattle viewed as substantially higher risk
- Body weight and age, with lighter, younger cattle seen as less resilient
- Transportation stress, including haul distance and time in transit
- Weather conditions, especially temperature swings and adverse conditions at arrival
- Expected morbidity and mortality, with vets more likely to anticipate higher disease impact if metaphylaxis was withheld
Veterinarians also placed strong weight on how these factors interact, rather than viewing any single signal in isolation. In the gray zone, multiple moderate risks stacking together often justified treatment.
Feedlot managers and producers, by contrast, placed greater emphasis on operational context and sourcing signals, including:
- Cattle source and origin, particularly whether cattle came from known suppliers
- Market channel, such as sale barn versus direct-from-ranch purchases
- Historical performance of similar cattle, drawing heavily on prior closeouts
- Visible condition at arrival, including fill, alertness and signs of stress
- Variability within the load, with uneven cattle raising more concern than uniformly moderate-risk groups
- Cost–benefit considerations, especially when expected disease levels were perceived as manageable
Producers were generally less likely than veterinarians to rate environmental conditions or body weight as primary decision drivers on their own, instead weighing how cattle had performed under similar circumstances in the past.
Where they aligned:
Before cattle arrived, both groups consistently identified market channel and cattle origin as the most influential pre-arrival indicators of risk. After arrival, overall cattle condition became the dominant real-time signal for both veterinarians and producers — often serving as the final checkpoint before deciding whether metaphylaxis was warranted.
Experience Continues to Guide Metaphylaxis Decisions
One of the study’s most striking findings is how heavily metaphylaxis decisions still depend on professional judgment rather than formalized thresholds. Respondents frequently described relying on gut feel, period outcomes with similar cattle and local norms.
That reliance on experience isn’t necessarily a flaw — BRD risk is complex and context-dependent — but it does introduce variability. Two operations receiving similar cattle under similar conditions might make different metaphylaxis decisions, with both believing they are acting responsibly.
From an antimicrobial stewardship standpoint, that variability is significant. Medium-risk cattle represent the largest opportunity and challenge for reducing unnecessary antibiotic use without increasing disease loss.
Opportunities to Better Align Veterinarians and Producers on BRD Risk
Rather than framing these differences as conflict, the authors point to an opportunity for better alignment. Veterinarians and managers bring complementary perspectives: Veterinarians tend to focus on population-level disease prevention, while managers weigh operation history, cost and day-to-day realities.
Clearer conversations around expected morbidity, acceptable loss thresholds and what success looks like for a given group of cattle could narrow the gap. So could shared post-placement reviews that compare expectations with actual outcomes, helping refine future decisions.
As scrutiny for antibiotic use in food animals continues to intensify, metaphylaxis decisions will only draw more attention. This study highlights that improving consistency doesn’t necessarily require new drugs or diagnostics, but better alignment between the people making the call.
When risk is uncertain, clarity between veterinarian and producer might be one of the most powerful tools available.
