Veterinary Medicine

7 Reasons Your Deworming Program Isn’t Working

Tue, 12 May 2026 18:09:13 GMT

For many producers, deworming has become a routine part of herd management. Cattle are processed, products are administered and the expectation is that parasite control is handled for another season.

But across the industry, cattle continue to underperform despite regular treatment. In many cases, the issue is not a single product failure, but a combination of resistance pressure, hidden production losses and management habits that gradually reduce the effectiveness of parasite control programs over time.

On the most recent episode of “ The Bovine Vet Podcast ,” Megan Bollin, a technical services veterinarian with Norbrook, and Nancy Jackson, a field veterinarian for the Mississippi Board of Animal Health, outlined several reasons why deworming programs may not be delivering the results producers expect.

1. Subclinical Parasites May Be Hurting Performance Before You Notice

Parasites do not need to cause obvious disease to affect productivity. In many cases, the biggest losses are occurring quietly through reduced digestion, feed efficiency and weight gain.

“Those parasites are going in and doing damage to the lining of the abomasum, and so what normally should be a lower pH is actually becoming more neutral. That impacts protein digestion, nutrient absorption and even appetite. It reduces voluntary feed intake, and then that cascades into average daily gain, feed efficiency, milk production and reproductive performance,” Bollin explains.

Because those effects develop gradually, they are often difficult to recognize without measurement.

“They’re those silent robbers that are there. We can’t really see them, and that’s why it’s called a subclinical impact, but they’re doing major damage,” Bollin says.

Jackson notes some calves may visibly underperform, but many losses remain subtle enough that producers underestimate the impact.

“You can see it in some cases, calves just standing there, not grazing, not performing, but a lot of times producers don’t realize what they’ve lost because they’re not measuring it,” Jackson says.

2. Resistance Is Already Present on Many Operations

Reduced dewormer efficacy is no longer considered a future concern. Parasite susceptibility can now vary significantly between farms, even within the same geographic region.

“Even from one side of the county to the other, recommendations might be very different depending on pasture type, parasite exposure and treatment history,” Bollin says.

That variability makes it increasingly difficult to assume a protocol that works well on one operation will perform the same way elsewhere.

At the same time, few replacement products are expected in the near future.

“We’ve routinely given the same things over and over, and we don’t have any new molecules on the horizon,” Bollin explains.

As resistance pressure increases, reduced efficacy in existing products can have growing consequences for cattle performance and long-term parasite control.

3. You May Be Underdosing More Often Than You Think

One of the most common management issues contributing to reduced efficacy is underdosing. As cattle size has increased over time, dose estimates have not always kept pace.

“Our producers still think they have a 1,000-lb. cow, but cows have been getting bigger for years. So, we’ve probably been underdosing cattle, especially those larger animals and bulls.” Jackson warns.

Underdosing exposes parasites to a drug without fully eliminating them, increasing the likelihood that surviving worms contributes to future resistance problems.

4. Some Dewormers Are Being Used Like Fly Control Products

Convenience can also create problems when products are used outside their intended purpose.

According to Jackson, some producers are administering pour-on dewormers at partial doses primarily for fly control rather than at labeled doses intended to control internal parasites. Repeated exposure to subtherapeutic drug levels creates ideal conditions for resistant parasites to survive and spread.

5. Poor Record-Keeping Makes Resistance Harder to Detect

Inconsistent product tracking can make parasite control decisions much more difficult over time. Without knowing which active ingredients or drug classes have been used previously, producers may unknowingly rely on the same class repeatedly or struggle to evaluate whether a protocol is still effective.

“I’ll ask what they used, and they’ll say, ‘It was the blue one’ or ‘I got it off the shelf at the co-op.’ But we need to know the active ingredient to make good decisions,” Jackson says.

That lack of detail can make it harder to identify emerging resistance patterns before they become more significant problems.

6. Application Problems Can Look Like Resistance

Not every apparent treatment failure is true resistance. In some cases, the problem lies in how the product was administered.

“There are a lot of things that have to go right with a pour-on for it to work. If the animal is dirty, that product isn’t going to get absorbed. If it rains, it can dilute it. Oral products can be spit out. There are a lot of factors that can look like resistance but aren’t,” Bollin explains.

Without recognizing those factors, producers may incorrectly conclude that resistance is solely to blame.

7. Parasite Problems Don’t Stay on One Farm

The effects of ineffective parasite control can extend well beyond a single operation. As calves move through the production chain, resistant parasite populations can move with them, affecting downstream performance and management decisions.

“When those calves leave your place, you’re passing that parasite load on to someone else. If it’s resistant, it affects the feedlot and performance down the line,” Jackson warns.

That interconnectedness means small failures repeated across multiple operations can gradually reshape parasite pressure across the industry.

Why Parasite Problems Keep Building

Many deworming programs do not fail because of one dramatic mistake. Instead, they lose effectiveness gradually through repeated small issues: underdosing, inconsistent application, misuse of products and resistance pressure that goes unnoticed until performance has already been affected.

Routine treatment schedules alone are no longer guaranteeing consistent outcomes, particularly when the surrounding management practices remain inconsistent. This means parasite control is becoming less about whether cattle are treated and more about how those treatments are being used and how the results are being monitored over time.

To hear more from Bollin and Jackson on how deworming strategies may be falling short, and how strategies are evolving, listen to the full conversation on the latest episode of “The Bovine Vet Podcast.”

The New Rules of Parasite Control

Thu, 07 May 2026 19:35:27 GMT

For decades, parasite control in cattle has followed a familiar script: Treat the whole herd in the spring, treat again in the fall and trust that the job is done. It’s simple, efficient and deeply ingrained in how many operations function.

But that approach is starting to shift.

On the most recent episode of “ The Bovine Vet Podcast ,” Megan Bollin, a technical services veterinarian with Norbrook, and Nancy Jackson, a field veterinarian for the Mississippi Board of Animal Health, describe an industry moving away from routine, whole-herd deworming and toward a more strategic, data-driven approach.

At the center of that shift is a fundamental change in thinking. As Bollin explains, the goal is no longer the complete elimination of parasites but rather smarter management of them.

“Historically, we’ve had the mindset of just getting rid of all the parasites, right? One-hundred percent — we want them all gone. But we’ve got to consider that 90% of the life cycle is in the pasture. So we’ve got to learn to live with these parasites,” Bollin says.

Why Routine Deworming Falls Short

Routine deworming became standard for a reason. It aligned with when cattle were already being handled, minimized labor and offered a straightforward protocol producers could repeat year after year. The problem is that convenience doesn’t always align with biology. Treating cattle when they are easiest to handle may not coincide with the most effective point in the parasite life cycle, which ultimately limits the return on treatment.

“It may be a convenient time when we have them caught, and I know it takes a lot of labor and planning and resources to get those animals through the chute and treat them, but it may not be the most economically beneficial time to treat them if we’re not applying that product at the correct time in the life cycle,” Bollin says.

Because most of the parasite life cycle occurs on pasture rather than in the animal, poorly timed treatments can miss the window where they would have the greatest impact. The result is a system that feels consistent but may not be working as efficiently as intended.

Replacing Guesswork With Diagnostics

As parasite control becomes more strategic, diagnostics are moving from optional to essential. Instead of relying on assumptions or visible signs, producers are increasingly being encouraged to measure parasite burden directly.

Fecal egg count testing provides a snapshot of parasite burden by quantifying the number of parasite eggs present in a manure sample, giving a measurable baseline rather than relying on assumption. Building on that, the fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) evaluates how well a dewormer is working by comparing egg counts before and after treatment — typically 10 to 14 days later — to determine the percentage reduction. A reduction of around 95% is generally considered indicative of effective treatment, while lower reductions may signal reduced efficacy or emerging resistance.

Together, these tools allow parasite control decisions to be based on data, helping tailor treatment strategies to the specific conditions of each herd rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

“If you’re doing just a straight fecal egg count, it needs to be quantitative. A qualitative test — just saying whether parasites are there or not — is not helpful, because you’re always going to have parasites,” Bollin advises.

Those baseline measurements allow for informed decisions about whether treatment is needed and how well products are performing. Follow-up testing is just as important, helping confirm whether a dewormer is still effective.

Rather than relying on routine schedules, this approach acknowledges that treatment decisions vary from one operation to the next.

“There’s no magic number that says you need to treat at this high of an egg count,” Bollin says. “It’s going to depend on your geography, your herd and your operation.”

That variability is something producers already manage in other aspects of their operation. As Jackson notes, parasite control should be approached with the same level of flexibility.

“Every farm is unique — when they calve, when they wean — so it’s hard to make a cookie-cutter template,” Jackson says.

In many cases, the need for measurement comes down to what isn’t immediately visible. Subclinical parasite burdens can quietly reduce performance without obvious warning signs, making data even more valuable.

Refugia: A Counterintuitive but Critical Strategy

Rather than treating every animal, every time, the concept of refugia encourages leaving a portion of the parasite population unexposed to dewormers. Bollin explains that this approach helps preserve drug effectiveness by maintaining a population of parasites that remain susceptible, rather than selecting only for those that survive treatment.

“Refugia is leaving a percentage of the parasites unexposed to a dewormer. The idea is that resistance is a heritable trait, so we’re trying to dilute those resistance genes and maintain a population of parasites that are still susceptible to the products we have available,” Bollin says.

While it may seem counterintuitive, this strategy reflects a broader shift away from trying to eliminate parasites entirely and toward managing them in a way that sustains long-term control.

Implementing refugia doesn’t mean abandoning treatment. Instead, it means focusing on the animals that benefit most.

“We know that calves are going to be more susceptible, so ideally we want to treat those animals. But those mature cows — if they’re in good condition and have good nutrition — their immune system should be able to suppress those parasites,” Bollin says.

This kind of targeted approach allows producers to use dewormers more effectively while also supporting broader parasite management goals.

Combining Classes to Improve Efficacy

While refugia focuses on preserving a population of susceptible parasites, another strategy aims to improve how effectively treated parasites are eliminated. Combination deworming, or the concurrent administration of anthelmintics from different drug classes, is increasingly being used to improve efficacy in the face of variable parasite susceptibility.

Because these classes act through distinct mechanisms — such as macrocyclic lactones targeting parasite neuromuscular function and benzimidazoles disrupting microtubule formation — using them together can increase overall parasite kill and reduce the proportion of resistant survivors. The benefit becomes clear when considering how efficacy compounds across treatments.

“If you have 100 worms and you go in with a product that has 80% efficacy, you’re left with 20. Then you come in with a second dewormer, also at 80% efficacy, and it kills 80% of those 20. So you go from 80% efficacy up to 96% by using two products with different mechanisms of action,” Bollin explains.

This additive effect can help achieve the reduction typically associated with effective control, particularly on operations where single products no longer meet that threshold. Used alongside approaches like refugia and diagnostic-guided treatment, combination therapy becomes part of a broader strategy aimed at maintaining both short-term efficacy and long-term sustainability.

A More Strategic Future

Taken together, these changes represent a shift away from routine and toward precision parasite management. Instead of relying on fixed schedules, producers are being encouraged to align treatments with parasite biology, use diagnostics to guide decisions and adjust protocols over time.

That shift requires a willingness to rethink long-standing habits. As Jackson points out, progress often starts with being open to change: “We’ve always done it a certain way, but there’s always room to learn and adjust how we’re managing these parasites.”

It also depends on continued collaboration and learning across the industry. Parasite control is not a one-time decision but rather an ongoing process that evolves with new information.

“It’s continual education for both the producer and the veterinarian to understand the life cycle and apply that information to the herd,” Jackson says.

Ultimately, the goal is to move beyond routine and toward more intentional decision-making.

“I think very simply, it’s about not doing it on guesswork like we have been for decades; it’s about using the science and the tools that we have available and being more strategic about how and when we treat,” Bollin says.

Parasites are not going away, but the way they are managed is evolving. Producers who adapt to these new rules will be better positioned to protect both animal performance and the tools they rely on to sustain it.

To hear more from Bollin and Jackson on how deworming strategies are evolving, including where current protocols are falling short, listen to the full conversation on the latest episode of “The Bovine Vet Podcast.”

New Dual-Route Vaccine Shows Promise Against Bird Flu in Cattle and Beyond

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:03:07 GMT

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) is no longer just a poultry problem. Since its detection in U.S. dairy cattle in 2024, the virus has spread across herds, cutting milk production, driving economic losses and raising concerns about zoonotic transmission to humans. Infected cows can lose substantial milk output in a matter of weeks. The virus has been detected in milk, respiratory secretions and mammary tissue.

Despite this, there are currently no licensed influenza vaccines for cattle, leaving producers reliant on biosecurity and herd management to limit spread.

Against this backdrop, researchers at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln have developed a vaccine designed to keep pace with a virus that is both evolving and expanding its host range. Rather than targeting a single strain, the approach uses a centralized consensus H5 antigen, positioned near the center of the virus’s evolutionary tree to maximize cross-protection across variants.

Dual-Route Delivery Targets Where Infection Starts

What sets this vaccine apart is not just its breadth, but how it is delivered. Researchers combined intramuscular and intranasal administration, aiming to activate immune defenses both throughout the body and at the primary site of infection.

“The idea was that if we put it intramuscularly, we can prevent it from spreading in the body, and then a mucosal aspect, intranasally, would prevent it from spreading from animal to animal,” said Eric Weaver, professor of biological sciences and director of the Nebraska Center for Virology, in a news release .

This dual-route design is intended to generate:

Systemic immunity through circulating antibodies and T cells
Mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract, where influenza viruses first establish infection

Together, these responses may improve protection against disease while also reducing viral transmission.

The platform uses adenoviral vectors in a prime–boost regimen, switching vector types between doses to strengthen immune responses and avoid interference from preexisting immunity.

Strong and Broad Immune Responses

The vaccine was evaluated in both mice and Holstein dairy calves, with consistent findings across species. In each model, it generated robust immune responses spanning multiple arms of the immune system.

Antibodies isolated from animal serum and nasal swabs recognized a wide panel of H5 strains, from early isolates in the late 1990s through recent 2024 bovine strains. Mucosal IgA responses increased notably after booster vaccination, indicating the vaccine is effectively engaging respiratory immunity.

In parallel, strong T-cell responses were observed against both historical and contemporary viral strains, supporting the idea that protection may extend beyond traditional neutralizing antibody responses.

Complete Protection in Challenge Studies

In mouse challenge experiments, the vaccine demonstrated strong protective efficacy. Animals exposed to lethal doses of divergent H5N1 strains, including a recent bovine isolate, showed minimal clinical signs and survived infection.

Vaccinated mice maintained body weight and showed no significant disease
All unvaccinated controls experienced severe disease and were euthanized

This protection occurred even when neutralizing antibody responses were limited against some strains, suggesting broader immune mechanisms, including T cells, play a key role.

Still Early, but Promising

“We’d like to have a vaccine for the farm and the farmer, and everything shows that this would be an effective vaccine platform for humans as well,” Weaver said.

While the findings are encouraging, the vaccine remains in the experimental stage. The study did not include challenge trials in cattle, and questions remain about durability, field performance and effectiveness against fully virulent strains.

Even so, the results point to a meaningful shift in influenza vaccine design. By combining cross-reactive antigen targeting with dual-route delivery, this approach aims to anticipate viral evolution rather than react to it.

If those advantages hold up in real-world conditions, it could offer a much-needed tool for managing H5N1 in cattle and reducing the risk of further spillover.

Are We Treating the Wrong Cows for Metritis?

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:11:42 GMT

One in four dairy cows develops metritis. It’s one of the most common and costly diseases in the postpartum period.

But Caio Figueiredo, assistant professor at the College of Veterinary Medicine of Washington State University, raises the following uncomfortable question:

What if we’re not actually defining metritis correctly in the first place?

Because if the definition is off, everything downstream — diagnosis, treatment, antimicrobial use — follows it.

The Cracks Start at Diagnosis

In practice, metritis is diagnosed visually, using vaginal discharge scoring. It’s simple, fast and scalable across herds. Cows are generally scored on a scale of 1 to 5. The issue lies not within how to score cows, but in which scores define metritis.

“There isn’t a clear consensus of what discharge, on the clinical level, distinguishes a cow with metritis or not,” Figueiredo explains.

That lack of agreement directly shapes which cows get treated. So before we even talk about treatment protocols, we’re already dealing with a moving target.

Most scoring systems eventually funnel into two categories that matter clinically:

VD4: Purulent discharge
VD5: Fetid, watery, red-brown discharge

Both are commonly labeled “metritis” and both are commonly treated.

But they don’t look the same — and the data suggests they don’t behave the same either.

“Are these two conditions metritis? Should we treat both, or just one?” Figueiredo asks.

Despite the uncertainty, most dairies don’t differentiate, treating both VD4 and VD5 cows with antibiotics.

“Only a very selected group treat exclusively VD5 cows. The remaining dairies treat both conditions,” Figueiredo explains, referencing a survey of 45 dairies in California .

(Photos: Merck)

VD5 Looks Like a Different Disease

When you step back and look across studies, a consistent signal starts to emerge:

“There is some evidence that those groups are not necessarily the same,” Figueiredo states.

That difference becomes much harder to ignore once you look beyond the discharge itself.

Start with inflammation, which isn’t just a uterine issue.

“VD5 cows have greater levels of inflammation compared to those with purulent discharge (VD4),” Figueiredo says. “Those VD5 cows have greater systemic inflammation as well.”

At the microbial level, the pattern holds. A 2024 study looked at the uterine microbiome to investigate the differences between VD5 cows and all others.

“Only cows with vaginal discharge score 5 have greater bacterial count compared to the other discharges,” Figueiredo explains.

These animals had greater overall bacterial counts, as well as increased Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas and Bacteroides counts compared to lower-scoring cows. And when you zoom out to the whole animal, the separation becomes even clearer.

In unpublished data from Figueiredo’s lab, VD5 cows show:

Higher acute phase proteins (e.g., haptoglobin) postpartum
Worse liver function indicators (↓ albumin, ↑ bilirubin, ↓ cholesterol)
Altered metabolic profiles at diagnosis
Reduced rumination and activity during peak risk windows

These results suggest this is not just a discharge difference, but a systemic disease state.

Performance Consequences

The biological differences translate directly into outcomes.

In large multi-herd datasets VD5 cows had noticeably impaired performance:

Milk production: Up to 1,000 kg less milk over 300 DIM
Reproduction:
- Lower likelihood of resuming cyclicity
- Reduced probability of receiving first AI
- Lower pregnancy rates by 300 DIM
Survival:
- Higher risk of culling
- Faster removal from the herd

By contrast, VD4 cows were indistinguishable from lower score cows across many of these same parameters.

What Is VD4?

According to Figueiredo, if VD5 represents a true systemic disease, VD4 may represent something else — perhaps a milder, localized or even transient condition.

Across multiple datasets, VD4 cows perform similarly to their lower-scored herd mates.

Which raises a critical question: Are we treating cows that don’t actually need treatment?

The Economic Reality of Treating VD4 Cows

In the U.S. alone there are ~9.5 million dairy cows and a ~25% VD4 and ~25% VD5 incidence. That puts millions of cows into each category annually.

If both groups are treated:

Total antimicrobial treatment costs can exceed $500 million annually

If VD4 cows are excluded from treatment:

Potential savings approach $270 million per year

This difference in cost doesn’t account for labor, any effects of handling stress or the downstream impacts of antimicrobial use.

Why This Matters More Than It Seems

This isn’t just a classification issue. It touches multiple pressure points:

Antimicrobial Stewardship
Metritis is a leading driver of antibiotic use. Refining treatment criteria is one of the fastest ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.

Economic Efficiency
Treating cows that don’t benefit is pure inefficiency at scale.

Public Trust
Consumer concern around antimicrobial use continues to grow. Precision matters.

From Visual Diagnosis to Biological Precision

The takeaway isn’t to stop treating metritis, but to start treating it more precisely.

Right now, decisions are largely driven by what we can see. But the evidence suggests what we see doesn’t always reflect what’s happening biologically.

A more practical, data-aligned framework could look like:

VD5 → clear systemic disease → treat
VD4 → uncertain or mild → monitor, refine or selectively treat

This shift moves us away from a purely visual diagnosis model.

“We’re going to have to look deeper into the biology and then come back to the real-life problem,” Figueiredo says.

That means integrating:

Immune and inflammatory markers
Microbiome makeup
Metabolic and behavioral signals

The goal is straightforward: Align diagnosis with biology, not just appearance.

Ultimately, VD4 and VD5 cows don’t share the same biology, the same risk or the same consequences. One behaves like a mild or localized condition while the other is a true systemic disease with measurable impacts on performance and survival.

Treating them the same way is inefficient and outdated.

The future of metritis management isn’t about treating more cows, it’s about treating the right ones.

10 Practical Tips for Milk Fever Prevention and Treatment

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:55:18 GMT

Milk fever is still one of the most costly transition cow problems. While down cows get the attention, it’s often the subclinical cases quietly eroding performance that matter most.

To help producers navigate these challenges, we’ve gathered insights from a panel of experts featured on “ The Bovine Vet Podcast ”:

Heather Chandler, a practicing field veterinarian.
Burim Ametaj, an immunometabolism researcher at the University of Alberta.
Megan Connelly, a transition cow specialist with Protekta.

Identify the Invisible

1. Monitor the herd, not just the emergencies

Subclinical hypocalcemia is often invisible, yet it drives secondary diseases and lost milk.

“Blood calcium is an easy thing to look at if we want to be proactive,” Connelly says.

The Action: Pull blood samples from 10 to 12 fresh cows (0-72 hours post-calving) and track the percentage of the group falling below normal calcium thresholds.

2. Watch the cow, not just the spreadsheet

Data is vital, but the eye of a trained herdsman is irreplaceable. Connelly notes many subclinical cases simply show up as cows that “don’t come in and thrive.”

The Action: Train your team to flag cows with reduced intake, lower rumination or generally “off” behavior. Performance dips often precede clinical disease.

Choose and Lock in a Strategy

3. Pick one strategy and execute it flawlessly

Consistency beats complexity every time. Whether you choose a negative DCAD diet or a Zeolite program, the success of the program depends on execution rather than the choice itself.

The Action: If using DCAD, monitor urine pH religiously. If using Zeolite, focus on the feeding rate and dietary phosphorus levels.

4. Respect the 21-day close-up window

A transition diet only works if the cow actually eats it for the required duration. Chandler emphasizes both DCAD and Zeolite programs need to be fed 20 to 25 days before calving.

The Action: Separate close-up cows into their own group 21 days before their due date and ensure they have daily access to the specific transition ration.

Immediate Calving Intervention

5. Time your calcium boluses for maximum impact

Calcium demand spikes the moment the calf hits the ground. Timing is everything.

“You can even give boluses before she calves,” Chandler suggests.

The Action: For high-risk cows, provide one bolus at the onset of labor (or immediately at calving) and a second bolus 12 to 24 hours later.

6. Treat down cows as true emergencies

A cow that cannot stand is a race against time.

“The pure weight of a down cow leads to muscle necrosis quickly,” Chandler warns.

The Action: Respond immediately. While waiting for the vet, roll the cow side-to-side to maintain circulation and ensure she is on deep, supportive bedding. When administering IV calcium, do it slowly and monitor the heart rate.

7. Address the full mineral picture

If a cow isn’t responding to calcium, it may not be a simple case of milk fever. Chandler notes low phosphorus or magnesium are often at play.

The Action: If a cow’s response to treatment is poor, work with your vet to supplement phosphorus or magnesium and review your overall mineral protocols.

Long-Term Stability

8. Prioritize rumen health to support calcium

Rumen stress and inflammation can directly disrupt a cow’s ability to regulate calcium. Ametaj points out many transition cows exist in a chronic inflammatory state.

The Action: Protect the rumen by avoiding sudden starch increases. Push up feed frequently to prevent sorting and ensure the ration contains adequate effective fiber.

9. Avoid over-acidification

While DCAD is effective, more is not always better. Over-acidifying the diet can lead to a drop in dry matter intake, creating a new set of problems.

The Action: Regularly check urine pH. For Holsteins, aim for a target of 5.5 to 6.5. If you see intake drop, reassess the diet immediately.

10. Commit to a monthly program review

“Collaboration is the key to success,” Connelly says. A program that worked six months ago may need a tune-up today.

The Action: Meet monthly with your veterinarian and nutritionist to review fresh cow disease data, milk fever cases and blood calcium trends. Small, data-driven adjustments prevent major wrecks.

Watch the latest episode of The Bovine Vet Podcast focusing on milk fever here:

Your Vet Recommended RT-PCR for Mastitis — Now What?

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:03:57 GMT

If your veterinarian is recommending RT-PCR (real-time polymerase chain reaction), it’s usually tied to a specific frustration point on the dairy. That might be repeated “no growth” culture results, ongoing contagious mastitis challenges or a high number of clinical cases without clear answers.

As Dr. Jim Rhoades, veterinarian with IDEXX, put it:

“PCR is not new, but it may be new to some of our producers. It’s a tool that is really applicable to diagnosing mastitis on commercial dairy farms now. Getting good, timely information to make management decisions is probably undervalued in many cases.”

At its core, this isn’t about adding another test. It’s about getting clearer, more actionable information to guide management decisions. RT-PCR is one key in the advancement of technology for mastitis detection and prevention .

What RT-PCR Actually Does

RT-PCR works by detecting the genetic fingerprint of bacteria rather than trying to grow them in the lab.

Here’s the simple version:

Every pathogen has unique DNA. RT-PCR takes a milk sample mixed with fluorescence-tagged pathogen-specific DNA primers and runs it through repeated heating and cooling cycles that facilitate the amplification of the target pathogen DNA. As that DNA builds up through the cycles, a fluorescent signal increases, and once that signal crosses a defined threshold, the test reads as positive.

This amplification process is what allows PCR to detect even very small amounts of bacteria that culture might miss.

“PCR is grounded in specific genetic sequences that make the bacteria the bacteria. It is very specific to a single target. We’re not casting a wide net to see what grows. We’re looking for specific pathogens or groups of pathogens,” Rhoades explains.

How to Interpret a PCR Result

Instead of colony counts, PCR reports a cycle threshold, or Ct value. This reflects how many amplification cycles, the repeated heating and cooling cycles, were needed before bacterial DNA was detected via fluorescence.

The key takeaway is straightforward:

Low Ct = more bacteria present
High Ct = less bacterial DNA present

That’s the opposite of what most people are used to with culture, but once understood, it becomes a reliable way to gauge how significant a result may be.

Why PCR Can Still Be Positive When Culture Isn’t

In practical terms, culture depends on live bacteria being able to grow, while PCR detects DNA whether or not those organisms are still viable, which is why it can pick up infections that culture misses.

“With PCR we can have positive results that may have been negative with culture. It can give us information we may not have gotten from culture,” Dr. Pamela Adkins, associate professor of food animal medicine at the University of Missouri, says. “About 30% of clinical mastitis cases will come back culture-negative. When we use PCR, we find only 8% of those cases are actually negative.”

In practice, PCR is especially useful when:

Bacterial levels are too low to grow in culture
The cow has already started clearing the infection
Sample handling reduces bacterial viability

One of the most important things to understand is that PCR detects DNA, not necessarily live bacteria.

“The immune system may clear the pathogen, which is great. If that happens too quickly, we may not get an answer from culture, but the PCR will still be positive,” Adkins explains.

This is where interpretation is important. A PCR-positive result doesn’t always mean an active infection that needs treatment; it may reflect a recent infection that has already resolved.

Where PCR Fits and What to Do With It

PCR is best thought of as part of a broader diagnostic approach rather than a replacement for existing tools. Rather than replacing culture, it complements it by adding speed and sensitivity, particularly in situations where traditional methods fall short.

“These are all tools and we need to use all the tools in our toolbox,” Rhoades says.

In practice, PCR adds the most value when it helps you step back and understand what is happening at the herd level. It can identify infections that would otherwise be missed, clarify what pathogens are driving mastitis on your farm and point toward more effective prevention strategies.

For producers, that translates into a few key advantages:

A clearer picture of what’s actually in the herd
Better ability to reduce spread of contagious pathogens
More confidence in targeted, cost-effective decisions

When used correctly, RT-PCR can give you the information needed to make better decisions with fewer surprises, fewer missed infections and more control over the problem.

To learn more about how mastitis detection, prevention and treatment are changing, check out the following episode of “ The Bovine Vet Podcast ”.

Axiota Animal Health Names Wamego as Global Headquarters

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:36:35 GMT

Axiota Animal Health, a global leader in cattle health solutions, announced it will name its facility in Wamego, Kan., as the company’s global headquarters.

The announcement formalizes the longstanding presence of Axiota Animal Health in Wamego, where the company operates manufacturing, research and development, and scientific operations for its products used by cattle producers in more than 30 countries worldwide.

“Wamego has long been a cornerstone of Axiota’s manufacturing and research, so designating it as our global headquarters is a natural next step,” says Bill Weldon, Axiota Animal Health CEO. “From here, we’re developing and producing technologies that help cattle producers around the world improve herd health and productivity. Leveraging our location within the KC Animal Health Corridor and our longstanding relationship with Kansas State University allows us to drive innovation and attract the top talent the industry demands.”

Located near K-State, the facility benefits from proximity to one of the nation’s leading veterinary and animal health research institutions. That connection helps Axiota attract specialized scientific talent and collaborate with researchers advancing the future of livestock health.

From its Wamego facility, Axiota supports cattle producers worldwide in improving herd health and performance through prevention-based, nonantibiotic solutions. This includes:

Lactipro , the only rumen-native probiotic that delivers Mega e, proven to promote rumen health and performance.
Multimin 90 (zinc, copper, manganese and selenium injection) is the only FDA-approved injectable supplement that delivers four trace minerals known to support cattle health and reproduction.

The decision highlights the global impact of the KC Animal Health Corridor , a hub stretching from Manhattan, Kan., to Columbia, Mo., with Kansas City at its heart. The region, home to the world’s largest concentration of animal health assets, serves as a leading center for life science research, development and collaboration.

“Axiota’s decision to locate its global headquarters in Wamego reflects the industry leadership that continues to define the corridor,” says Kimberly Young, president of the KC Animal Health Corridor. “Companies here aren’t just participating in the industry — they’re driving the science, technology and production that support animal health and food security around the world.”

Bulls Remain the Weak Link in Trichomoniasis Control

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 20:01:59 GMT

A breeding season can appear routine until the pregnancy check tells a different story. Conception rates fall short of expectations, cows return to heat off schedule and open females begin to stack up. What looks like a management issue is often something far more specific and far more costly.

Across the U.S. beef industry, bovine trichomoniasis continues to drive significant reproductive loss. Economic modeling published in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics shows even modest reductions in disease prevalence can produce meaningful gains, with losses largely tied to fewer calves born and extended calving intervals. In affected herds, pregnancy rates commonly fall by 20% to 40%, and the financial impact compounds quickly over time.

At the center of it all is a consistent and often underestimated risk: the bull.

The Biology That Drives the Problem

Trichomoniasis, caused by the protozoan Tritrichomonas foetus, is a venereal disease transmitted during natural breeding. While both sexes are involved in transmission, the disease behaves very differently in cows versus bulls.

Most cows clear infection within two to four months. However, that clearance comes after early embryonic loss, often delaying conception by 30 to 90 days and stretching the calving season.

“The cow can mount a short-term immune response and clear the infection. She can eventually rebreed and carry a calf to term, but she’s going to lose that initial pregnancy that she had,” said Jennifer Koziol, associate professor of food animal medicine and surgery at the School of Veterinary Medicine at Texas Tech University on a recent episode of DocTalk .

Bulls, by contrast, create the long-term problem.

“The bull is a silent carrier because he doesn’t have any symptoms. He’s just going to spread it from female to female during breeding,” Koziol says.

A recent review published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences explains why. The organism colonizes the preputial crypts, where immune clearance is limited. As bulls age, these crypts deepen, increasing the likelihood of persistent infection. Once infected, bulls typically remain carriers for life.

This biological mismatch is what makes control so difficult. The cow eventually clears the infection, but only after reproductive loss. The bull never clears it and continues to transmit it.

Recognize the Pattern in the Herd

Trichomoniasis rarely presents as a single obvious sign. Instead, it emerges as a pattern of reproductive inefficiency that can be easy to misinterpret early on.

“We see low pregnancy rates ... cows returning to estrus at intervals they shouldn’t, we can see abortions, ” Koziol says, discussing the big indicators that something is wrong in the herd.

These clinical signs reflect disruption during early gestation. Most losses occur within the first 60 days of pregnancy, often before confirmation, which is why the problem may go unnoticed until later in the season.

The full impact often becomes clear at pregnancy check.

“We go out and do pregnancy checks, and we’re only getting 50% to 60% conception rates. That’s a pretty terrible day when you’re just saying open, open, open,” Koziol says.

In heavily affected herds, calf crops can drop into the 50% to 70% range, well below the 85% to 95% typically expected in well-managed operations. At that point, the biological effects have already translated into economic loss.

“This is not an individual animal problem — it’s a herd-level problem. Once we find a positive, we have to start thinking about the entire bull battery and the whole herd,” Koziol says.

Epidemiologic studies, including one published in Theriogenology, show herd structure and management decisions drive disease persistence. The use of older bulls, multi-sire breeding systems and the introduction of untested animals all increase risk. Even a single infected bull can maintain transmission within a herd, particularly when multiple bulls are breeding simultaneously.

How Trich Continues to Spread

Despite long-standing awareness, trichomoniasis persists because of how easily it moves between herds and how difficult it can be to detect with absolute certainty.

“A lot of times the way a herd gets infected is if a neighbor bull breeds cows, then your bull breeds behind him and becomes positive. That’s why testing before and after the breeding season is so important,” Koziol says.

Fence-line contact, shared grazing and commingling all create opportunities for exposure. Diagnostic research, including recent work on evolving testing approaches, highlights another challenge: no single test guarantees detection. While PCR has improved sensitivity compared to traditional culture, false negatives can still occur due to sampling technique, organism load or intermittent shedding.

For that reason, Koziol suggests repeated testing should be used to improve confidence in bull status, specifically at the start and end of the breeding season. Even virgin bulls should be screened.

“We don’t trust a virgin-status bull,” Koziol warns. “When we buy a bull, we want to test him and know that he’s negative.”

No Treatment, Only Prevention

A defining limitation of trichomoniasis control is the absence of an effective treatment for bulls. Prevention depends on verification, not assumption. Bulls must be tested prior to introduction, regardless of perceived risk.

Once a bull tests positive, removal from the breeding population is the only effective option. There is no reliable method to eliminate infection.

Vaccination plays a supportive role, primarily in cows, where it can reduce the severity and duration of infection. While experimental vaccine trials in bulls have been performed, they have not yet produced a practical solution for eliminating the carrier state. As a result, vaccination should be viewed as an adjunct, not a replacement for testing and culling.

The Economics of Getting it Wrong

For producers weighing the cost of testing, the comparison is straightforward.

“The test costs about $45 to $60 depending on the state. That’s pretty economical compared to losing multiple $2,000 cows,” Koziol says.

Economic analyses reinforce this at scale. Losses are driven not only by fewer calves, but also by extended calving seasons, reduced uniformity and increased replacement pressure. Even relatively small drops in pregnancy rate can have a measurable impact on profitability, particularly in larger herds.

Where Control Succeeds or Fails

Operations that successfully control trichomoniasis tend to follow a consistent set of practices:

Test all bulls before and after each breeding season
Remove positive bulls immediately
Minimize commingling and fence-line exposure
Verify the status of all incoming breeding animals

When these steps are applied consistently, trichomoniasis becomes a manageable risk. When they are skipped, even once, the disease can establish and persist.

Trichomoniasis is not a new disease, and it is not a mysterious one. Its persistence is tied to a single, well-defined weakness in herd management.

Bulls remain the weak link because they are both the reservoir and the vector, carrying infection silently and indefinitely. The visible losses show up in the cow herd, but the source remains easy to overlook. Control depends on consistent use of the tools already available.

Trichomoniasis erodes reproductive performance quietly, one breeding at a time. In most cases, the problem begins — and continues — with the bull.

Xylazine Legislation Advances as Veterinarians Push to Protect Access

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:53:43 GMT

The Senate Judiciary Committee today advanced the Combatting Illicit Xylazine Act by a vote of 19–3, marking a significant step forward for bipartisan legislation aimed at addressing the growing role of xylazine in overdose deaths. The bill is led by Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and has drawn broad bipartisan support from lawmakers, veterinary organizations and federal agencies.

As momentum builds in Congress, veterinary leaders are working to ensure those efforts do not unintentionally disrupt animal care. The focus has shifted to how regulation can be implemented without restricting access for the veterinarians and producers who rely on the drug every day.

In the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing held Thursday afternoon, stakeholders from law enforcement, public health and veterinary medicine outlined the risks and realities surrounding xylazine use.

Xylazine’s Dual Reality

Xylazine occupies a unique position in the U.S. drug landscape. It is a widely used veterinary sedative with a long track record of safety and effectiveness, yet it has also emerged as a concerning component of the illicit drug supply, frequently detected alongside fentanyl and other opioids.

Its growing presence in human drug use has raised alarm among lawmakers and public health officials. Federal officials and lawmakers have pointed to the growing presence of xylazine in the illicit drug supply as a key driver of concern. Because xylazine is not an opioid, its effects are not reversed by naloxone, complicating overdose response and increasing risk.

At the same time, veterinary professionals emphasize its role in animal care is both established and difficult to replace.

Speaking during the hearing, Fred Gingrich, DVM, executive director of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, underscored the need for balance:

“We believe this legislation represents a thoughtful, balanced and urgently needed solution that both addresses the serious human health threat and preserves access to this essential drug for legitimate veterinary use. The veterinary community is deeply concerned about the public health crisis caused by the rapid proliferation of illicit xylazine being found in combination with fentanyl and other opioids.”

A Cornerstone of Veterinary Practice

For more than five decades, xylazine has been a foundational tool in veterinary medicine, particularly in large animal practice. Its value lies not only in its pharmacologic effects but also in its practicality in real-world conditions.

“As a non-narcotic, FDA-approved veterinary sedative, xylazine has been used for over 50 years to facilitate the safe handling, restraint and treatment of a broad range of animal species. It is particularly important for use in livestock, zoo and wildlife species, as well as in research settings,” Gingrich says.

In cattle, its importance is even more pronounced. Effective sedation is not simply a matter of convenience — it is essential for safe handling, proper treatment and minimizing stress.

“In cattle, there is no safe practical alternative for sedation. Without xylazine, veterinarians and producers face significantly increased risks of injury, and animals may be subjected to unnecessary stress or harm during medical procedures,” Gingrich says.

The Risk of Regulatory Overreach

As concern about illicit xylazine has grown, so too has interest in bringing the drug under federal control. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has indicated a desire to schedule xylazine under the Controlled Substances Act.

However, current law presents a critical limitation. The Controlled Substances Act does not allow the DEA to create exemptions for specific user groups, including veterinarians. Gingrich emphasizes administrative scheduling alone could restrict veterinary access, increase regulatory burden and disrupt supply.

“Administrative scheduling would unintentionally restrict how veterinarians use the drug and create burdensome regulatory barriers and jeopardize the continuing availability of the drug in the legitimate marketplace. A disruption in the availability of xylazine would have profound consequences,” Gingrich says.

Gingrich also notes supply constraints could amplify the impact of regulatory changes, with only a limited number of manufacturers currently producing the drug. In a low-margin market, additional regulatory or financial burdens could further threaten availability.

A Legislative Path Forward

The Combatting Illicit Xylazine Act would classify xylazine as a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act, enabling better tracking of its manufacture and distribution while strengthening enforcement against illicit use. At the same time, it includes provisions to ensure veterinarians, producers and researchers can continue to access the drug.

The bill also addresses how veterinary medicine differs from human healthcare, particularly in how drugs are prescribed, dispensed and used in real-world settings. In large animal practice, veterinarians often work with farm owners, employees and caregivers rather than a single individual patient and may rely on responsible on-farm use under veterinary oversight.

Support for the bill is broad, spanning veterinary organizations, law enforcement groups and federal agencies, reflecting a rare alignment across sectors.

What Is at Stake for Veterinary Practice

For veterinarians, the implications of the legislation not passing are immediate:

Increased risk of injury during handling and procedures
Reduced ability to perform timely and humane interventions
Greater stress on animals during restraint
Operational challenges for producers, particularly those with limited facilities

These risks extend beyond clinical settings, affecting the broader agricultural system where safe and efficient animal handling is essential.

Avoiding a Fragmented Approach

In the absence of federal action, several states have already begun exploring or implementing their own restrictions on xylazine. While well-intentioned, these efforts raise concerns about a potential patchwork regulatory system that could complicate compliance and disrupt supply chains.

A unified federal framework aims to prevent that outcome by establishing consistent standards while maintaining access for legitimate users.

Veterinary organizations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association and the AABP, have taken an active role in shaping policy discussions.

“Legislative action on xylazine is not only preferable, but it is essential. The legislation has been endorsed by all 50 state veterinary medical associations and numerous national stakeholder groups,” Gingrich says.

As lawmakers weigh next steps, the challenge is clear: addressing a growing public health threat without disrupting a long-established tool in veterinary medicine. Regulation must be precise enough to target misuse while preserving access to a drug that remains central to safe and humane animal care.

Tips for Managing Hospital, Chronic and Rail Pens in Beef Feedlots

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:43:53 GMT

Special pens are designed to improve outcomes. But in many feedlots, they quietly become a source of drag on both health and performance.

“There’s a lot of philosophy around special pens, and not a lot of science,” says Dr. Brian Warr, veterinarian with TELUS Agriculture. “But the goal is to have as few animals as possible in each pen. We’re trying to keep it a truly special place, somewhere cattle can go and get better.”

In practice, that is not always what happens. Over time, hospital, chronic and rail pens can evolve into a catch-all for anything that does not fit elsewhere. Lame cattle, poor doers, repeat pulls and animals with unclear diagnoses accumulate in the same space. The result is not just inefficiency, it is a loss of structure.

“I see special pens that are like my top dresser drawer, you open it up and it’s just everything I don’t know what to do with,” Warr says. “In my book, if it’s in there, it should have a reason.”

To reclaim efficiency, we must stop viewing these pens as waiting rooms and start seeing them as active decision points. Every hour an animal spends in a special pen should move it toward a defined outcome:

Recovery (Return to home pen)
Reclassification (Move to chronic/salvage)
Euthanasia (Welfare intervention)

By shifting the mindset from storage to movement, veterinarians can turn a source of drag back into a high-performance tool for health.

Start with One Principle: Treat and Go Home

“We treat the animal and then the question becomes, now what?” Warr says. “The philosophy that’s come out of this is ‘treat and go home.’ Once they’re treated, we send them back to their home pen whenever we can.”

This approach challenges a long-standing instinct in feedlot management, which is to hold cattle back for observation after treatment. While that instinct is well intentioned, it often overlooks how strongly the environment influences recovery.

The home pen offers familiarity. Cattle return to known pen mates, an established social hierarchy and consistent access to feed and water. It also helps avoid disruptions in diet, which can be important in high-energy finishing systems.

By contrast, moving cattle into a shared hospital environment introduces what Warr describes as the “hospital effect.”

“When we put all the sick cattle in one place, we’re increasing infectious disease pressure,” he says. “We’re also introducing stress. It’s a new environment, they don’t know where the feed or water is, and the social order has to reset.”

Those stressors influence intake, behavior and immune function in ways that can counteract treatment.

Warr’s field experience comparing treatment protocols has supported this idea. Cattle treated with the same antimicrobial performed better when returned to their home pen than when held in a hospital pen.

This does not mean special pens are unnecessary, but it does mean they should be used selectively, not routinely.

Define the Role of Each Pen

Clarity in special pen management starts with defining what each pen is actually for, and just as importantly, what it is not for.

1. Treatment (Hospital) Pen

The treatment pen is intended for cattle that require active, short-term management. These are animals that need to be brought back through the chute for multiple days of therapy or require close observation due to the severity of their condition.

In many operations, this pen also becomes a holding area for cattle that are “too something”: too sick, too lame or too light to return to their home group. That can be appropriate, but it should be intentional.

The priority is maintaining flow. Every animal in the treatment pen should be moving toward a defined outcome. Some will complete therapy and return to the home pen. Others may transition into the chronic group. A small number may require euthanasia.

2. Chronic Pen

The chronic pen is where management discipline becomes most important — and where it often breaks down.

“When you walk into a chronic pen, you’re looking at the worst cattle in the whole feedlot,” Warr says. “It can feel defeating. But these are a small percentage of the total population, and we need to manage them deliberately instead of losing track of them.”

Without structure, that is exactly what happens.

“The big thing is don’t let it turn into an ‘I don’t know’ pen,” he adds. “If you don’t have a system, cattle just stay there and no one knows where they came from or where they’re going.”

Introducing a simple evaluation system can restore clarity.

“If I walk into that pen today, I might not know if that animal is getting better or worse,” Warr says. “But if I have a weekly data point, like weight, I can make that decision.”

That combination of objective and subjective assessment allows for more consistent decisions. Cattle can return to the home pen if they are improving and able to compete. Others may move to salvage if they are unlikely to finish. Some will require intervention from a welfare standpoint.

3. Rail Pen

The rail pen represents an endpoint in the system, but it still requires active management.

Tracking these outcomes clearly provides feedback on earlier treatment and management decisions. Without that information, it is difficult to evaluate how protocols are performing over time.

From a practical standpoint, this pen requires attention to withdrawal times, fitness for transport and clear entry criteria. These decisions often involve both economic and welfare considerations, so consistency is important.

4. Buller (Rider) Pen

The buller pen is designed to address mounting behavior, but it should remain temporary.

“We’ll give those cattle a cool-down period and then try to send them back,” Warr says. “About a third may come back again, but two-thirds will stay. If we don’t try, we just end up building bigger and bigger buller pens.”

Holding cattle too long in these pens can recreate the same social pressure that caused the issue in the first place. Reintroduction should be the default approach whenever possible.

Redefine the System: From Performance Drags to Biocontainment

The failure of a special pen is rarely complex. It is usually the result of overcrowding, poor footing and inconsistent management. These persistent issues don’t just slow recovery, they can actively create new health crises.

Beyond physical stressors, feeding strategy remains one of the most common blind spots in special pen management.

“When cattle go from a lower-energy hospital ration back to a higher-energy home ration, we can create acidosis,” Warr warns. “The clinical signs can look like a BRD relapse, and then we end up treating something that wasn’t BRD at all.”

This metabolic whiplash can lead additional losses that are difficult to explain on a necropsy report.

Correcting these nutritional gaps is the first step, but the larger opportunity lies in shifting toward a culture of biocontainment. While perfect biosecurity is often an unreachable goal in a feedlot, practical biocontainment — limiting the spread within the yard — is achievable. This shift opens the door to high-impact operational changes: adjusting treatment orders, separating high-risk cases and planning ahead for disease events. In high-performing facilities, this is simply part of the culture: the last animal isn’t out of the chute before the crew is already cleaning the alley.

The Bottom Line

Special pens should improve outcomes, not concentrate problems. For veterinarians and managers, the opportunity is in creating clarity: define the purpose of each pen, set clear movement criteria and build systems crews can follow consistently.

In the end, the goal is to use special pens deliberately — and as little as possible.

Serum Total Protein as a Benchmark for Calf Program Performance

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 15:34:29 GMT

Serum total protein (STP) testing has a relatively straightforward purpose in calf medicine: determining whether newborn calves successfully absorbed antibodies from colostrum.

But according to Bethany Dado-Senn, calf and heifer technical specialist with Vita Plus Corp, the metric is increasingly being used in a broader way. Rather than evaluating passive transfer in individual calves alone, many dairies now track STP results across groups of calves to assess how well their maternity and colostrum programs are working.

Few management decisions influence calf health more than what happens in the first hours after birth. Because STP reflects those early management decisions, it can provide rapid feedback about how well a calf program is functioning.

Why Serum Total Protein Matters

Serum total protein provides a practical proxy for immunoglobulin absorption after colostrum feeding. If calves receive adequate high-quality colostrum shortly after birth, STP values typically fall into higher ranges. If colostrum management is inconsistent or delayed, STP levels tend to drop.

The test is inexpensive and easy to perform using a refractometer, which has made it one of the most widely used field tools for evaluating passive transfer.

Research shows STP and passive transfer status is closely linked to calf health. In a large cohort study of over 4,000 calves, passive transfer status was associated with differences in disease incidence, mortality risk and early growth performance.

Calves with higher STP concentrations experienced fewer health events during the preweaning period compared with calves in lower passive transfer categories. These findings suggest STP reflects more than antibody transfer alone. It may also capture the combined effects of colostrum quality, feeding timing and early calf care.

These relationships have led veterinarians to view STP as an early indicator of overall calf program success.

Understanding STP Benchmarks

Modern passive transfer benchmarks are largely based on research evaluating thousands of dairy calves. The Dairy Calf and Heifer Association classification system divides calves into four categories based on serum total protein levels.

Passive Transfer Category	Serum Total Protein
Poor	<5.1 g/dL
Fair	5.1–5.7 g/dL
Good	5.8–6.1 g/dL
Excellent	≥6.2 g/dL

Strong colostrum programs typically achieve:

At least 40% of calves in the “excellent” category
Fewer than 10% in the “poor” category

“Calves in that poor category have a four times increase in mortality risk and about a one and a half times increased risk of bovine respiratory disease and scours,” Dado-Senn says.

Tracking these proportions over time helps farms monitor the consistency of colostrum management.

Serum protein concentrations gradually decline as calves age. For that reason, sample calves between 2 and 4 days of age whenever possible. Maintaining a consistent sampling protocol is especially important when STP is used as a herd-level benchmark.

From Diagnostic Test to Management Benchmark

Rather than focusing only on individual calves, many dairy operations now track herd-level STP results over time. Some farms monitor average STP values by month or quarter, while others track the percentage of calves falling into different passive transfer categories.

In some cases, the metric is even used as a management tool to encourage employee performance.

“There are a number of dairies that I work with that utilize things like serum total proteins or average daily gains of their calves as kind of a performance benchmark for their staff. There might be a list on the door saying, ‘Hey, here’s our serum total protein goal. Here’s where everybody is relative to that,’” Dado-Senn says.

Using STP this way creates a direct feedback loop between colostrum management and measurable outcomes. When calf-care teams can see how their practices translate into herd metrics, it becomes easier to identify where protocols are working and where adjustments may be needed.

Tracking STP Trends Over Time

Evaluating STP results as trends rather than isolated measurements can be helpful for evaluating broader systems. Monitoring herd averages and passive transfer categories over time can reveal subtle changes in colostrum management before clinical problems appear.

In herds with strong maternity protocols, STP trends can remain consistently high. Dado-Senn describes one dairy client who tracks STP trends on a quarterly basis.

“Looking at serum total protein trends over quarters, they do an absolutely fantastic job. Their averages are well-above the excellent range and they typically don’t have much more than 1% or 2% in the poor category,” Dado-Senn says.

Tracking results this way gives farms a broader evaluation of calf program performance, allowing them to make system-wide improvements.

Detect Management Problems Early

Because STP reflects events that occur immediately after birth, shifts in herd averages can reveal management issues before disease outbreaks occur.

Declining STP values may signal:

delayed colostrum feeding
lower colostrum quality
changes in maternity staffing
inconsistent colostrum handling protocols

Spot testing calves periodically can identify these problems quickly.

A Simple Test with Growing Influence

Calf programs involve many moving parts, from maternity management to housing and nutrition. Yet the earliest decisions in a calf’s life often have the greatest impact. Serum total protein testing provides a simple way to measure the success of those decisions.

What began as a diagnostic test for passive transfer is increasingly becoming something more: a practical performance indicator for the entire calf system.

Compounded Drugs in Livestock: Regulations, Uses and Benefits

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:25:20 GMT

“Compounding pharmaceuticals are drugs that we start with an approved drug in livestock and poultry,” says Dr. Brian Payne, veterinarian and director of research and development and technical services for Veterinary Pharmaceutical Solutions on a recent episode of DocTalk . “We change the format of it so that it’s more applicable to the livestock species.”

In livestock medicine, you may face situations where no labeled drug exists for a specific species, condition or route of administration. In those cases, compounded drugs may provide an alternative by adapting approved medications into formulations better suited for food animal production systems.

Why Compounded Drugs Are Used in Livestock Medicine

One reason compounding plays a role in food animal medicine is the limited number of pharmaceuticals developed specifically for livestock species.

“There’s a limited amount of resources being spent on livestock today on new pharmaceuticals,” Payne says. “But there’s a lot of really good pharmaceuticals out there that veterinarians want to use for livestock. If we can take those active ingredients from FDA-approved products and get them into the right format, you have a whole other tool for your producers.”

Rather than creating entirely new drugs, compounding allows veterinarians and pharmacists to modify existing FDA-approved medications into formats better suited for livestock production.

How Compounded Drugs Improve Drug Delivery

One advantage of compounding is the ability to create alternative delivery methods that may better fit livestock production systems.

Many treatments traditionally require injections or running cattle through a chute, which can increase labor and stress for animals and handlers. Compounded formulations may allow treatments to be delivered through oral suspensions or drinking water systems when appropriate.

“If you’re putting it through the water, it can minimize handling, which is always a positive,” Payne says. “And also if you need to choose a drug that’s different, now you have the ability to administer it that way.”

Alternative delivery routes may also allow veterinarians to select drugs with different pharmacologic profiles when needed.

“It gives you the ability to choose a drug that’s different and administer it in a way that works for the operation,” Payne says.

Veterinary Regulations for Compounded Drugs

Despite some misconceptions, compounded drugs used in livestock are subject to regulatory oversight.

“We always have to start with an FDA-approved product,” Payne says. “Once we start manipulating or compounding those drugs, we have to follow procedures to make sure that’s cleanly done.”

Compounding itself can be performed either by a veterinarian or a pharmacist.

“Once a veterinarian gets their license, they have the full ability to compound themselves or a pharmacist can compound,” Payne explains. “A producer can’t compound on their own.”

A decision framework from the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act and FDA guidance that prioritizes approved treatments before considering compounded options should be followed:

Use an FDA-approved drug for the species, condition and route of administration when available.
Consider extra-label use of an approved product when appropriate.
Use compounded formulations when no approved option meets the clinical need.
Ensure the compounded drug begins with an FDA-approved product.
Establish appropriate withdrawal intervals to prevent residues.

Withdrawal Times and Quality Control

Residue avoidance remains a critical responsibility when using compounded drugs in food animals.

“There’s zero tolerance for any residues in compounded products, and we have to keep that in mind,” Payne says. “It’s the responsibility of the veterinarian to prescribe that with a withdrawal period.”

Withdrawal intervals may be determined using pharmacokinetic information, including drug half-life and available research data, to estimate when residues are no longer present in the animal.

Quality control is another important component of pharmaceutical compounding. Compounding pharmacies may test compounded batches to ensure the drug concentration matches the intended formulation.

“We want to check to understand if the potency we say is in there is actually in there,” Payne says.

Compounded Drugs as an Additional Tool for Livestock Veterinarians

Compounded drugs are not intended to replace approved pharmaceuticals. Instead, they provide another option when labeled products are unavailable or impractical for a particular situation.

For veterinarians managing herd health across diverse livestock systems, that flexibility can be valuable.

“It gives you another set of tools to utilize,” Payne says.

New Formulations Aim to Improve How Dewormers Work in Cattle

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:38:34 GMT

Before an oral dewormer can kill parasites, it has to dissolve. But new research suggests that step may not always happen as efficiently as expected. In laboratory testing, a commercial oxfendazole tablet released only about 10% of its drug content, prompting researchers to explore new formulations designed to improve dissolution and extend drug exposure in cattle.

Bezerra and colleagues at the Dundalk Institute of Technology in Ireland explored whether reformulating the common benzimidazole dewormer oxfendazole could improve both dissolution and the duration of drug exposure in cattle. The findings highlight an important point: how a drug is formulated can influence how well it works.

The Hidden Step in Deworming: Why Dissolution Matters in Cattle

When an oral anthelmintic is given to cattle, the drug must first dissolve in gastrointestinal fluids before it can be absorbed or interact with parasites in the digestive tract. For drugs like oxfendazole, that step can be difficult. Benzimidazole anthelmintics are poorly soluble in water, which can limit how quickly and completely they dissolve.

In dissolution testing designed to simulate acidic abomasal conditions, researchers found a commercial oxfendazole tablet released only about 10% of its drug content.

Laboratory dissolution tests do not perfectly replicate conditions in cattle. But the pharmacologic principle still applies: if a drug does not dissolve, it cannot be absorbed effectively. For parasites that require sustained exposure to a drug, incomplete dissolution may limit treatment effectiveness.

Why Drug Delivery Is Challenging for Oral Dewormers in Cattle

Delivering drugs to ruminants is more complicated than in monogastric animals. After administration, an oral drug passes through several very different digestive environments. The rumen and reticulum operate near neutral pH, while the abomasum is strongly acidic. The drug then moves into the intestines, where pH gradually rises again.

Several factors can influence how much drug ultimately becomes available to affect parasites:

Rumen dilution, which can disperse oral drugs before they dissolve
Shifting pH environments throughout the digestive tract
Gastrointestinal transit time, which determines how long drugs remain available for absorption
Enterohepatic recycling, where drug excreted in bile re-enters the digestive tract

Many gastrointestinal parasites are exposed to anthelmintics through both systemic drug levels and the drug moving through the digestive tract itself. Because of this, the timing and extent of drug release can influence parasite exposure.

Rebuilding the Tablet: New Formulations for Oxfendazole

To address the dissolution problem, researchers developed experimental oxfendazole tablets using two advanced pharmaceutical manufacturing techniques: hot-melt extrusion and microinjection molding.

These techniques embed the drug within polymer matrices, converting it from a crystalline form to an amorphous structure. Amorphous drugs typically dissolve more readily, improving bioavailability.

In laboratory testing, one experimental formulation released nearly 90% of the drug during dissolution testing, an eightfold improvement compared with the commercial tablet.

The formulation used polyethylene oxide as the primary polymer carrier. When exposed to fluid, the polymer swells, allowing water to penetrate the tablet and gradually release the drug.

The result was substantially more active drug becoming available in the simulated gastrointestinal environment.

Extending Drug Exposure in Cattle

Researchers also explored whether tablet design could extend how long the drug is released in the digestive tract. A second formulation incorporated polycaprolactone along with polyethylene oxide, producing a slower-eroding polymer matrix. As fluid enters the tablet, pores gradually form within the polymer structure, allowing the drug to diffuse outward over time.

In dissolution testing, this formulation released drug gradually over about three days, roughly matching the typical 72-hour gastrointestinal transit time in cattle.

For parasite control, a slow-release system could potentially maintain drug exposure longer and improve efficacy against parasites that require sustained exposure.

Safety Considerations

Because cattle are food-producing animals, both the active drug and formulation components must be safe.

The study evaluated the polymer formulations using liver cell cultures. At concentrations consistent with expected exposure, the materials used in the tablets did not demonstrate cytotoxic effects.

Polymers such as polyethylene oxide are widely used in pharmaceutical formulations because they are biologically inert, stable during processing and compatible with controlled-release drug systems.

What It Could Mean for Parasite Control in Cattle

While the results are promising, the research remains at an early stage. Field trials would be needed to determine whether improved dissolution and controlled-release properties translate into better parasite control in cattle.

Still, the findings highlight an often-overlooked factor in deworming success. The effectiveness of an anthelmintic depends not only on the drug itself, but also on how it is delivered in the animal.

9 Questions to Guide Antimicrobial Selection in Cattle

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:11:39 GMT

In bovine practice, smarter antimicrobial selection starts by asking better questions. Antimicrobial stewardship isn’t necessarily about using fewer drugs, but using the right drugs for the situation. Dr. Corale Dorn, owner of Dells Veterinary Services in South Dakota, suggests asking the following nine questions before reaching for a bottle.

1. What Pathogens Are We Treating?

“You’ve got to get the diagnosis right before you pick what antibiotic you’re going to use,” Dorn says.

Antimicrobial selection in cattle must begin with pathogen clarity.

Is this truly bacterial disease? And if so, what are the most likely pathogens? A navel infection differs from respiratory disease just as uterine pathogens differ from central nervous system pathogens.

“We’re super lucky that people will bring the sick animals to us … so we have the opportunity to do a very thorough physical exam,” Dorn says. “We want to get that diagnosis right, or at least a good list of differentials, and we’re thinking about some of those comorbidities.”

Before selecting an antimicrobial, narrow your differentials and identify the organisms you are most likely targeting. Stewardship starts here.

2. Is There Something Labeled We Can Use?

Start with labeled products whenever possible.

Is there an antimicrobial approved for this disease in this species? Labeled use strengthens regulatory compliance and simplifies withdrawal considerations. Extra-label drug use may be necessary, but it should follow a clear rationale, be well documented and be founded on a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship.

3. Is There Any Medication We Cannot Use?

Antimicrobial selection is as much about exclusion as it is about selection.

Are there legal restrictions? Are certain drugs prohibited in food animals? Do extra-label drug use regulations eliminate certain options?

Removing inappropriate options early protects both the patient and practitioner.

4. Can We Reach the Pathogen Where It’s Living With This Drug?

Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration should drive decisions.

“There’s lots of things out there that are labeled for Histophilus somni in cattle to treat it. However, if it’s in the brain and it’s causing TEM, is that drug going to be able to penetrate through the meninges?” Dorn asks.

Drug labels and spectrum charts are helpful, but drug distribution determines success. Lung tissue, uterus and central nervous system each present different barriers.

Dorn explains often the question posed is whether bacteriostatic or bactericidal antibacterials are better. In the past, students were taught bactericidal was best, but recent work suggests that it doesn’t really make a difference.

“Can that drug get to that location is more important,” Dorn says. “It doesn’t really make a difference whether it’s static or cidal as long as we’re giving support to the animal.”

5. Can We Even Get That Product Right Now?

Dorn has an all too familiar question she has to ask: “Is it even on the shelf this week?”

Ideal protocols mean little if the drug is unavailable.

“The supply chain business is just infuriating. You get it down to your favorite protocols, and then that’s not available anymore,” Dorn says.

Drug shortages and supply variability have become part of production medicine. Understanding drug classes and alternatives allows flexibility when inventory shifts.

6. What Are the Milk and Meat Withdrawals?

Withdrawal times are central to antimicrobial use in cattle.

How long are milk and meat withdrawals? Does this animal’s stage of production make those intervals critical? Is she close to market? Is she a high-producing dairy cow?

Withdrawal considerations affect economic decisions and regulatory compliance.

7. How Many Treatments and How Easy Is the Treatment?

“You’re thinking about how many treatments this is going to take and how easy it is to give the treatments in this particular case,” Dorn says, acknowledging each operation is different. Daily restraint in a well-designed dairy parlor differs dramatically from catching pasture cows multiple times.

Communicating the impact of the individual operation with your client is also important.

“It never fails,” Dorn says. “You give a treatment, and they say, ‘Oh, that’s not what you gave my neighbor’s cow last week.’”

Treatment protocols must fit the production system, not just the pathogen.

8. How Much Does It Cost?

Drug choice influences not only treatment success but also labor costs, compliance and client perception.

“You will build relationships with your clients by kind of walking through the thought process and letting them decide they’d rather spend more money and not have to treat her [again] versus just complain that you always pick the most expensive antibiotic when you get there,” Dorn explains.

Transparency strengthens trust and structured reasoning builds credibility.

9. How Does This Fit Antimicrobial Stewardship?

Every antimicrobial choice contributes to the broader stewardship landscape.

“Make sure that we protect those antibiotics that we want to be able to use,” Dorn says, praising the work AABP has done to ensure antimicrobial availability. “In order for all of us to be able to do this for generations to come, you have to think about this.”

Responsible antibiotic use in cattle requires:

Confirming bacterial disease
Targeting pathogens where they reside
Choosing appropriate, reachable drugs
Considering withdrawals
Evaluating practicality and cost
Preventing recurrence through management

Veterinary antimicrobial stewardship protects drug efficacy for future herds and future generations.

The Bottom Line

Antimicrobial selection in cattle is not about memorizing a gold standard drug. It is about systematically answering the practical questions.

“It’s not one gold standard,” Dorn says. “It is a continuum and it’s going to be tailored to the situation that’s in front of you. You need to take a look at the whole picture from the client and then come up with a best agreed-upon treatment plan.”

Taking a pause to consider the whole picture could be the most important step in making sound antimicrobial decisions.

Is Your Dystocia Kit Ready?

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:11:35 GMT

Calving season rarely unravels because of one catastrophic mistake. More often, it is delayed recognition, repeated unproductive pulling or the one missing tool that turns a manageable dystocia into a wreck.

A ready dystocia kit is not just a bucket of equipment sitting in the barn office. It is timing, facilities and a clear decision tree that guides what happens when progress stalls. Caitlin Wiley, clinical associate professor at Iowa State University, outlines what you should consider including in your dystocia toolkit.

Start With Time, Not Tools

Before a chain ever goes on a leg, producers and veterinarians should share clear expectations about how long is too long.

Stage one of calving, the initiation of labor through the appearance of the water bag, lasting more than 12 hours warrants concern. Stage two, when the calf should be delivered, extending beyond an hour, and certainly two hours, should prompt intervention.

Wiley advises regular check-ins to ensure things are on track.

“Give yourself 15 to 20 minutes of doing whatever you’re attempting to do. Are we making progress? If not, reassess. If we’re not making progress, what’s our next best step?” she says.

Repeated traction without advancement is not persistence. It is lost opportunity, and often escalating trauma. Clear timing protocols belong in your kit just as much as chains and lubricant, because they determine when you change course rather than double down.

Build a Kit That Extends Your Reach

A functional dystocia kit should be assembled and inspected in preparation for calving.

These are the items Wiley recommends keeping in your kit:

Multiple long OB chains
A wire introducer for placing chains in deep or awkward cases
A head snare or extra chain that can function as one
A calf jack for controlled traction
Ample lubricant, preferably carboxymethyl cellulose based
Suturing material in case of hemorrhage
An oro-gastric tube and a separate stomach tube
A stomach pump
Appropriate drugs, including epidural agents and uterine relaxants
A speculum
A halter for improved restraint

This list is not exhaustive, and individual practice style will shape it further. The key principle is simple: your tools should extend your reach and options, not limit them because something essential was forgotten.

Facilities Are Part of the Kit

Equipment cannot compensate for poor setup. Facilities shape outcomes long before traction begins.

An open-sided chute that allows access from both sides improves both efficiency and safety. A halter tied forward can help prevent repeated setbacks when cows attempt to lie down mid-manipulation. Small adjustments in positioning and restraint often reduce the physical strain on both the cow and the person assisting.

When facilities allow you to evaluate, reposition and reassess without chaos, decision-making improves.

Confirm the Three Ps Before You Pull

Before committing to sustained traction, slow down long enough to confirm your three Ps.

“Position, posture, presentation,” Wiley says. “If you miss those pieces, you can spend a lot of time trying to pull something that’s not going to work.”

Engage the legs into the pelvis before applying force. If you cannot fit your hand between the calf and the pelvis, that observation matters. Continuing to crank without engagement increases trauma and fatigue and rarely improves the outcome.

Backward calves, twins and head-back presentations each demand deliberate assessment before force is applied. In many cases, the decision to pivot starts with recognizing engagement is not happening.

Know When to Change the Plan

There is a point where traction becomes counterproductive.

“I think sometimes we look at C-sections as a fail, and I argue it’s not. It’s a good, valid option. Sometimes the sooner decision becomes the better outcome we have for our cows and our calves,” Wiley says.

The goal is not to prove you can get a calf out vaginally. The goal is viability and recovery.

Changing the plan is not an admission of defeat. It is clinical judgment.

Debrief Every Case

After each dystocia, take time to reflect on what happened, even briefly.

“Regardless of how it comes out, ask, ‘Can we do something different? Can we work on this?’” Wiley suggests.

Was the call delayed? Were timing expectations unclear? Was there a moment when reassessment should have come sooner?

Dystocia will always be part of cattle practice. But incomplete kits, delayed reassessment and reluctance to pivot do not have to be. A ready kit is preparation in both equipment and judgment, and both matter when minutes count.

Why We Need Technology and Human Expertise to Close The Mastitis Detection Gap

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:51:54 GMT

Mastitis detection remains constrained by parlor realities. Modern dairies are designed to maximize throughput, leaving little margin for detailed milk inspection on every cow at every milking. Even highly trained milkers can overlook subtle milk changes or early signs of disease when operating under fatigue, time pressure and competing demands.

“With how fast parlors are being pushed, workers are asked to milk more cows in shorter amounts of time. To look at and examine milk thoroughly for 8- or 12-hour shifts, it doesn’t always happen on every single cow,” says Dr. Justin Hess of Clinton Veterinary Services. “You’d be amazed at how much you can actually miss.”

Subclinical mastitis is particularly vulnerable to underdetection because it requires intentional testing that is accompanied by labor, cost and workflow implications.

Improving mastitis outcomes depends less on detection itself and more on what happens afterward. Farms today are generating more information than ever, but that information does not automatically translate into better decisions. Sound mastitis protocols need to be in place and understood by all on a dairy.

“If you try to develop a protocol, and the management team isn’t on board and you don’t have the right people in place, you’re going to struggle and probably make things more difficult,” Hess explains. “We like to keep things simple but effective.”

These protocols largely include management choices surrounding animal density, mastitis detection methods and even the choice of bedding in the stalls.

Concerning mastitis detection methods, on-farm culturing demonstrates the tension between simple and complex protocols well.

(Rose Memories Photography LLC)

“Culturing on-farm can be a struggle because of the increase in labor and having a dedicated person to do it. You also need the knowledge and desire to do it and do it correctly,” Hess says.

When farms have dedicated personnel, clear interpretation guidelines and confidence in how results will be used, culturing can reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and improve outcomes. When those conditions are absent, culturing may delay treatment without changing behavior, prompting farms to revert to broad-spectrum approaches for the sake of speed.

The challenge isn’t just the size of the farm, but the speed at which data must be converted into a treatment decision.

As the limitations of manual culturing and visual inspection become more apparent, the industry is shifting toward passive detection — systems that monitor the cow without requiring extra labor hours.

To address the complexity of dairy systems, Dr. Alon Arazi, chief veterinarian at Afimilk, hopes consolidating data generated by monitoring animals in existing protocols will help refine management and improve animal health.

“All this data is being gathered into one piece of software in which we do the analysis to detect mastitis,” Arazi says.

Sensor systems can also be used to detect mastitis based on deviations from the norm at a cow level. This baseline varies for each cow, meaning you need historical data for comparison.

“The main way to detect mastitis is based on what’s normal [for that animal]. Increased conductivity of a cow or dropped lactose to a lower level than is expected. This is mainly happening with clinical mastitis,” Arazi says. “One of the problems with subclinical mastitis is that the changes sometimes are very, very low and very hard to detect. In that case, we are looking for more and more sophisticated modeling algorithms that combine more and more things together to see things that are just starting to change.”

Mastitis Indicators Used in Automated Monitoring Systems

Automated monitoring systems identify cows suspected of mastitis by analyzing multiple milk and cow-level parameters simultaneously, rather than relying on a single signal. Key indicators include:

Milk conductivity
- Increased electrical conductivity associated with changes in ion flow during mastitis
- One of the primary and earliest milk signals used
Milk yield
- Sudden or unexpected drops in production relative to the cow’s baseline
Lactose concentration
- Decreases in lactose production when udder function is impaired
- Possible lactose leakage from milk or utilization by bacteria
Milk flow / milking dynamics
- Changes in milk flow rate that may reflect udder discomfort or inflammation
Rumination patterns
- Decreases in rumination associated with illness or discomfort
Eating behavior / dry matter intake
- Reduced intake relative to expected performance
Activity and behavior changes
- Deviations from individual cow behavioral baselines

This collected data is then compared and put into context on the individual, group and herd levels. Mastitis alerts are generated by combining multiple indicators, rather than any single threshold.

These disparate data points, along with the sheer volume of data, are where machine learning thrives.

“AI or machine learning will allow you to detect things that, even for us, are hard to see now. This for sure will improve subclinical detection,” Arazi predicts.

These systems aim to provide directional insight that shortens the time between detection and action by reducing the workload and finding changes in cow performance before they would be noticed by a worker. Catching a case 24 hours earlier could be the difference between a quick recovery and a culled cow.

“You don’t have to check every cow because the system has checked every cow two or three times in a day depending on how many milkings there are,” Arazi says. “You get the information, and you get the option to catch things earlier than people can see with their eyes.”

The Human Filter: Why Detection Requires Interpretation

Alerts without context quickly become noise. High alert frequency, poor specificity or unclear next steps can erode trust in the system. This is where veterinary intervention can help a dairy understand what they’re seeing and how best to act.

Hess stressed the questions he poses to dairies implementing updated mastitis detection protocols: “When you have that information, what are you going to do with that information? Are you going to actually change your protocols?”

Having more data is only useful for improving animal management if accompanied by a plan to act on what that data is telling you.

(Afimilk)

Technologies offering continuous observation and reduced reliance on human detection can introduce risks related to accuracy, workflow fit and trust. There is also the worry of false alerts.

“We can still improve accuracy, reduce false alerts and get more sensitivity,” Arazi says, speaking on the Afimilk system for mastitis detection.

These systems are, of course, not infallible. As with all hardware, there are uncontrollable hiccups that need to be considered when looking at the data generated.

“There are some critical parts of measuring conductivity,” Hess says. “If milk is moving or if air gets into the system, it can affect the sensitivity or the reading on it.”

At their core, these tools are designed to flag abnormal patterns, not to dictate diagnoses or management decisions. Alerts of deviations are only meaningful after interpretation by people who understand the cows, the parlor and the operation of the farm. Without the human layer, accurate detection risks becoming background noise.

“The only thing worse than no data is having wrong or misleading data,” Hess says.

The limitation is not simply technological, but decisional. This becomes most apparent when detection systems skew too far toward sensitivity at the expense of specificity. Highly sensitive tools identify earlier or more subtle changes, but they also generate more false positives. Each unnecessary alert pulls time and attention away from other priorities.

At the other end of the spectrum, overly specific systems may miss early disease signals, limiting their preventative value. Effective mastitis detection depends on deliberate trade-offs, favoring actionable accuracy over alert volume. The future of the dairy isn’t just in the data collecting sensors, but in how the person in the office uses that data to provide better care for the cow.

How Technology is Changing the Game in Mastitis Prevention and Detection

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:14:24 GMT

Mastitis is commonly described as an infectious disease, but in real-world dairy systems, it behaves far more like a systems problem. Case rates and economic impact are shaped by the barn environment, milking routines, labor capacity and cow flow long before a pathogen is identified. Mastitis persists not because veterinarians and producers lack knowledge, but because it emerges from the interaction of multiple, interconnected management decisions.

From a practice perspective, mastitis is never truly absent on a dairy.

The Ever-Present Risk of Mastitis

“Mastitis is always something you’re managing. It’s ever-present on a dairy and something you try to manage, control, keep in check and improve upon,” says Dr. Justin Hess, veterinarian at Clinton Veterinary Services in Michigan. “It’s always at the forefront to some degree. You hope to have control measures in place and treatment protocols well developed to make it easy and fairly straightforward for a dairy, but it’s ever-present.”

(Rose Memories Photography LLC)

Even well-managed herds maintain a baseline level of mastitis that fluctuates with the season, staffing changes and parlor consistency. Therefore, the practical objective is control rather than eradication. Success is measured by manageable case rates, quick identification of infection, limited impact on bulk tank somatic cell counts and culling pressure.

“Management choices such as bedding type used in stalls, overcrowding and detection methods for mastitis can all influence the case rate,” Hess says.

This reality contrasts with the tendency to treat mastitis as an isolated event. In practice, spikes in mastitis often follow subtle changes in the environment or management system. Instead of just identifying a pathogen, the vet’s value lies in identifying the systemic failure that allowed the pathogen to thrive.

(Afimilk)

Integrating Data Into Clinical Insight

Dr. Alon Arazi, chief veterinarian at Afimilk, shares the perspective that mastitis is not just one thing, but one signal inside a much bigger system of animal health, welfare and performance. That’s where technology comes in, specifically animal health monitoring systems where signals from multiple biological inputs are combined to paint a bigger picture of cow health leading to diagnosis. Technology, such as the Afimilk system, allows for the collection of large data sets from both activity and milk monitoring hardware to help with mastitis prevention and detection. Patterns, or deviations from these patterns, can signal when a cow needs a closer look.

“Twenty years ago, a very small percentage of farms used this technology. Now they are using it much more; more farms on a larger scale,” Arazi says. “In the past it was only milk matter and milk production. Now we have much more information. Information about the behavior of the cow and also more information about the milk, such as components … which led us to improving the accuracy of [mastitis] detection.”

(Photo: Rose Memories Photography LLC)

These ideas converge on a critical point: There is not one single component of herd health management that dictates mastitis prevalence; it is the sum of the whole. New technologies improve our monitoring capabilities, but they must be applied with strong fundamentals, management and prevention practices.

Solving the Root Cause of Mastitis

“If you cull the top 5% or the top few highest cows as far as somatic cell count, you’ll remove those cows and that’s easy, right? But it doesn’t actually tell you what’s causing those cows to get to that place,” Hess says. “If you’re not changing something upstream, you’re always going to deal with an issue downstream.”

Ultimately, the shift from reactive treatment to proactive system management is what defines a modern, resilient dairy. As Dr. Hess and Dr. Arazi highlight, data and technology are powerful allies, but they function best when they empower the people on the ground to make better “upstream” decisions. By treating mastitis as a symptom of the system rather than a standalone event, dairies can move away from constant firefighting to a more predictable, profitable future.

Having spent their careers at the intersection of veterinary medicine and dairy technology, Dr. Hess and Dr. Arazi share a common passion for evolving how we look at herd health. On the first episode of The Bovine Vet Podcast , they join host Andrea Bedford to discuss why mastitis is much more than a simple infection. Together, they explore the “systems” approach to dairy management and share insights on how veterinarians and producers can use data and environment to stay ahead of the curve.

When and How to Implant Calves on Cow-Calf Operations

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 14:55:59 GMT

Implants remain one of the highest-return technologies available to cow–calf producers when timing and technique align. Most implant failures are not product failures; they stem from calves being implanted at the wrong time, placed incorrectly or handled without enough attention to cleanliness and restraint. Success depends on getting both the “when” and the “how” right.

Why Timing and Technique Belong Together

“Implants will not replace good management,” says Lauren Younker, feedlot production consultant with TELUS Agriculture during a webinar with the Beef Cattle Research Council. “Healthy and less stressed calves are going to respond the most to an implant.”

Implants work by amplifying existing growth potential. That means calves must be healthy, minimally stressed and on an adequate plane of nutrition. Proper timing ensures the implant’s payout window matches biological opportunity and marketing goals, while correct placement ensures the hormone actually does what it is designed to do. Miss either piece, and much of the expected benefit disappears.

When to Implant: Matching Biology to the Calendar

For most cow–calf operations, branding or early pasture turnout (roughly 45 to 60 days of age) remains the most reliable window for implanting suckling calves. At this stage, calves are healthy, stress is often already part of routine processing and the implant’s payout aligns well with the grazing season.

Implanting too early offers little benefit. Calves at that stage are still physiologically adjusting, and implants require sufficient nutrient intake to generate a measurable response.

“For the first couple weeks [of life], they’re just getting used to being alive. That implant would probably not be doing much,” Younker says, advising against placing implants at newborn processing. “The older they are, that 45-day range, they’re starting to nibble on grass. You’re going to see more value there.”

Implanting later — including grass turnout at 120 to 150 days of age — is still worthwhile, particularly when earlier processing opportunities were missed. While some early gain potential is lost, implants can still improve feed efficiency and lean growth during the remainder of the grazing period. The key adjustment at later ages is selecting an implant appropriate for calf size and nutritional plane.

Reimplanting at weaning is an area in which the research is less clear. Younker suggests considering whether you will be keeping these animals as replacements.

“Some research suggests when we are implanting heifers at wearing, we can delay that first cycle and the first calving,” Younker says. “You can consider not implanting any of your heifers at weaning if you pick your replacements later, or you sort your replacements off at weaning and implant the rest to capture that value when you sell them later on.”

Common Implant Types and When to Use Them

Implants vary widely in potency and payout length, but at the cow–calf level, success depends more on matching the implant to the production phase than selecting the most aggressive option.

Suckling-calf implants (low-to-moderate potency)

When to use:
- Branding or early pasture turnout (typically 45 to 60 days of age)
- Calves grazing pasture with moderate energy intake
Why they fit:
- Improve average daily gain and feed efficiency
- Appropriate for both steers and heifers during the suckling phase
- Commonly used as a single implant when calves will be sold at weaning

Grower / grasser / stocker implants (moderate potency)

When to use:
- Post-weaning when calves are retained on pasture or backgrounding rations
- Programs where calves will be kept beyond weaning but not immediately finished
Why they fit:
- Payout periods align with extended grazing or backgrounding
- Useful when reimplanting retained calves
- Better matched to increasing nutrient intake

Longer-duration grower implants

When to use:
- Retained ownership where calves cannot be easily rehandled
- Grazing or backgrounding programs with limited processing opportunities
Why they fit:
- Extended payout reduces the need for reimplanting
- Helps align hormone release with longer marketing timelines

High-potency finishing implants

When to use:
- Feedlot or high-energy rations
- Retained ownership calves transitioning toward finishing

Why they fit:
- Most effective when paired with high-energy diets
- Generally not appropriate for typical cow–calf pasture systems

How to Implant Correctly

Even well-timed implants fail if placement is poor. Attention to technique protects both animal welfare and economic return.

Equipment matters. Bent, burred or dull needles increase tissue trauma and pellet damage. Replacing needles frequently is inexpensive and prevents avoidable failures.

Cleanliness is non-negotiable. Dirty ears and nondisinfected needles are among the most common causes of implant abscesses. If an abscess forms, hormone payout is compromised and performance gains are lost. Consistent use of disinfectant solutions and cleaning visibly dirty ears is critical, especially in wet or muddy conditions.

Restraint improves results. Proper head restraint stabilizes the ear, improves placement accuracy, and reduces tearing or cartilage penetration.

Most importantly, be proactive if something doesn’t seem right.

“If something goes wrong, redo it,” Younker says. “Implants are relatively cheap to the value they provide; they’re worth getting right.”

Implant Placement That Works

The preferred site is the middle third of the ear, between the skin and cartilage, away from tags, scars and ridges. Pellets should lie in a straight line and be palpable under the skin without bunching.

“We want to have a lot of blood flow and no scar tissue around where that implant is,” Younker says. “This will take practice. It’s a very learnable skill, but it will take you a few calves to get comfortable.”

Common placement failures include:

Pellets deposited into cartilage
Crushed or bunched pellets
Implants exiting through the ear
Excessive swelling weeks after processing

When placement errors occur, removing the pellets and reimplanting immediately is preferable to leaving a non-functional implant in place.

Put It Into Practice

Veterinarians and producers should work collaboratively to capture implant value consistently. That includes aligning implant timing with herd goals, recommending appropriate products for each production phase and reinforcing proper technique during processing.

This guidance often extends to specific situations producers ask about:

Replacement heifers: Suckling-calf implants used before four months of age have not been shown to impair future reproduction. Post-weaning implants warrant greater caution.
Dry years or marginal pasture: Implants still provide benefit and may be more valuable when nutrients are limited.
Retained ownership or show calves: Implant choice should reflect ration intensity and days on feed rather than age alone.

The Hardest Call in Cattle Health: When to Treat Disease

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 19:55:53 GMT

“Are we better off treating disease early or treating disease precisely?” Veterinarians of Kansas State University posed this question a recent episode of BCI Cattle Chat .

Deciding when to initiate treatment is one of the most consequential judgment calls in cattle health management. The tension between acting early and waiting for diagnostic certainty persists because there is no single correct approach. Each decision carries both biological and management consequences.

“To me, I’m looking at this and framing the question as should I be sensitive or specific in my diagnostic approach,” says Dr. Todd Gunderson, clinical assistant professor in beef production medicine at K-State.

A sensitive approach prioritizes catching disease early, accepting that some animals will receive treatment they might not truly need. A specific approach limits treatment to animals that clearly meet disease thresholds, reducing unnecessary intervention but increasing the risk of missing cases that would have benefited from earlier action. The trade-off is unavoidable.

Gunderson puts forth different clinical scenarios where either approach could be beneficial or detrimental.

“Treating scouring calves and, as a result, creating more scouring calves because I’m contaminating equipment, I’m contaminating my clothes … I’m overly aggressive at going into the calving pen,” he says.

On the other hand, waiting too long could negate any help treatment might offer.

“[If] I wait until the animal is at a pathological state where they have consolidation, they already have fibrinous pleuritis of the chest cavity or adhesion and fibrous attachments,” he says. “That animal has enough pathology that even if I kill every microbe in that animal’s system that’s causing disease, it would still not recover.”

Disease Treatment as a Dynamic Process

Rather than viewing treatment as a one-time, irreversible decision, a more effective framework treats intervention as a dynamic process. Choosing not to treat immediately does not mean choosing inaction; it means committing to close monitoring and reassessment over defined time intervals.

“I don’t get trapped into thinking that I have to make the decisions that I’m going to stick with,” says Dr. Bob Larson, professor in production medicine at K-State. “Let me make a decision today and act on it and then reassess it in 12 hours and reassess it in another 12 hours, and be flexible because I’m not good enough today to predict the next 12, 24, 72 hours and be right all the time.”

Repeated evaluations allow decisions to evolve as new information emerges, improving accuracy over time.

“Just because I acted doesn’t mean that now all my thinking is over,” Larson says. “If I act, I need to maintain vigilance, observations, reassess, be willing to change my mind.”

Make Decisions Based on the Herd

Treatment decisions should also be considered in the context of the group not in isolation. Individual animal signs can be ambiguous, but herd-level trends provide valuable context. During times of disease pressure, subtle changes might warrant treatment, while the same signs in an otherwise healthy group could justify continued observation.

“We sometimes take these decisions and try to make them in a vacuum, and you can’t do that,” says Dr. Brad White, Professor and Production Medicine Director of the Beef Cattle Institute at K-State. “Often, that individual animal is a part of a group. My expectations for that group today should impact my decision.”

This includes the recent health of the herd and the number of animals presenting as ill.

In addition, environmental and situational factors should further shape treatment thresholds. Weather conditions and recent stressors both impact disease risk and recovery potential. Incorporating these variables into treatment decisions expands diagnostic accuracy beyond the animal itself.

How Should Scouring Calves be Treated?

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 17:41:00 GMT

What ultimately threatens the survival of a scouring calf isn’t the diarrhea itself, but the cascade of dehydration, acid-base imbalance and energy flow that follows. As calving season approaches and temperatures drop, a familiar challenge presents itself: deciding how to intervene quickly and effectively before metabolic collapse sets in.

Neonatal calf scours is fundamentally a metabolic disease. Sodium, chloride and potassium are lost through diarrhea, D-lactate accumulates, blood pH drops, calves become weak, stop drinking milk and rapidly run out of energy reserves. Effective treatment means correcting these problems in a timely manner.

Treatment for a Scouring Calf

In the rush to do something, treatment with an antibiotic might be tempting, but a fluid plan could be the right call.

“Certainly, it seems way easier to give a shot than it is to actually go inside and mix up a bottle of electrolytes,” says Dr. Geoffrey Smith, dairy technical services veterinarian with Zoetis, on an episode of “ Have You Herd .” However, when treating a scouring calf, the goal isn’t simply to stop diarrhea, it’s to correct the metabolic derailment that diarrhea causes. “Your main treatment goals are correcting dehydration, making sure we’re replacing those electrolytes, sodium and potassium in particular, something to give that calf some energy, and ultimately, the goal is to get it back on milk.”

Achieving these goals depends not only on what fluids are used, but how they are delivered. Oral electrolyte therapy and IV fluids are both good options, but choosing the treatment that is best for each calf is important.

Oral Versus IV Fluids: Making the Call

According to Smith, oral electrolytes are appropriate for calves that are:

Still standing
Alert or mildly depressed
Able to swallow safely

IV fluids should be considered for calves that are:

Down or unwilling to stand
Severely depressed
Not responding to oral therapy

It used to be that IV fluids weren’t a part of the consideration, given the expertise or potential vet call required for administration, but with the increased value of calves, they’re being used more commonly.

Choosing an Oral Electrolyte that Works

There are a variety of oral electrolyte products available on the market. Smith says there are four things that should be considered when choosing a treatment.

Sodium concentration

“Sodium is really the backbone of that extracellular fluid,” Smith says. “If we don’t replace sodium, we’re not going to adequately rehydrate that calf.” He recommends somewhere in the 90 to 130 millimolar range to hit the hydration needs.

Glycine

Glycine is needed in the mix to increase sodium absorption across the gut wall. Glycine and sodium absorption in the intestine are closely linked, with glycine significantly enhancing sodium and water uptake via coupled transport mechanisms. It’s important to check your ingredients list as glycine is expensive and often left out of cheaper products.

An alkalizing agent

“Acidosis is critical; that’s probably why the calf is ultimately dying,” Smith says. “We need to make sure that our oral electrolyte has what we would call an alkalizing agent or something in there that will help increase the pH of the blood.” Sodium acetate or sodium bicarbonate are good options.

The strong ion difference

The strong ion difference, or the difference between the concentrations of strong cations and strong anions, is calculated by adding together the sodium and potassium concentrations and subtracting the chloride concentration. Smith advises a strong ion difference of at least 60 millimolar for oral electrolyte solutions for calves.

IV Fluid Options: Selecting for Speed and Effect

Large-volume isotonic fluids, such as lactated Ringer’s, are useful when a farm has the space and time to hold a calf, but to really hydrate the calf, it would need 4 liters to 5 liters.

“If you have a calf that’s flat out and really acidotic, lactated Ringer’s may not be the best because it’s going to take six to eight hours to really start seeing increases in blood pH,” Smith says. “There’s nothing wrong with lactated Ringer’s, but a lot of people have moved on to other fluids they could give in smaller volumes and still have a similar effect.”

Isotonic sodium bicarbonate is another option to correct the blood pH faster than lactated Ringer’s, but calves still need a large volume, about 4 liters.

Hypertonic saline can quickly improve calf hydration by creating an osmotic gradient between the gut and the blood, but it must be combined with oral electrolytes. Further, hypertonic saline is concentrated enough that it can be dosed via syringe instead of a catheter; however, it doesn’t address the acidosis.

“If we have a calf that’s recumbent or laying there on its side, probably that calf has pretty severe acidosis. I’m tempted to give hypertonic saline because I know it’s easy to do,” Smith says. “I may correct the dehydration, but if I don’t also correct the acidosis, the calf may go ahead and die after I leave.”

Hypertonic sodium bicarbonate supports both rehydration and pH correction, making it particularly valuable for recumbent or severely acidotic calves when rapid stabilization is needed. An oral electrolyte must also accompany treatment. Another benefit according to Smith, is that this can be made fairly easily at whatever concentration you’re comfortable with to address the bicarbonate deficit.

“When your calf is recumbent and doesn’t want to stand, your base deficit is at least 20 mEQ/L,” says Smith, recommending something in the ballpark of 500 mEQ of bicarbonate for a calf depending on weight.

Next Steps After Fluid Terapy for Calves with Scours

Recovery doesn’t end with the first fluid intervention. Smith recommends continued daily electrolyte support until the diarrhea resolves, typically three to five days. Calves that relapse after initial improvement frequently reflect incomplete correction of acidosis. Environmental factors matter as well; hypothermic calves respond poorly to fluids alone and should be warmed as part of therapy.

Successful scours management depends on aligning treatment with the calf’s physiological needs. Fluids that restore volume, correct acidosis and support a return to milk consistently outperform approaches that focus elsewhere. As calving season begins, reviewing protocols before calves go down can make the difference between recovery and loss.

nixiFLOR Injection Approved by the FDA for Bovine Respiratory Disease Treatment

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 19:37:10 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nixiFLOR injectable solution by Parnell Technologies, marking the first FDA-approved generic version of Resflor GOLD by Merck Animal Health. This product is indicated for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) associated with Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni and Mycoplasma bovis, and for control of BRD-associated fever in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle.

nixiFLOR contains the same active ingredients as Resflor GOLD:

Florfenicol, a broad spectrum antibiotic effective against key bacterial pathogens involved in BRD
Flunixin meglumine, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that helps reduce fever and inflammation associated with respiratory infection

The FDA determined nixiFLOR is bioequivalent to the brand name product and that, when used according to the label, residues in edible tissues do not pose a public health concern. A withdrawal phase of 38 days must be observed before cattle treated with nixiFLOR enter the food supply.

Administered via subcutaneous injection in the neck, nixiFLOR is prescribed at 40 mg florfenicol/kg body weight and 2.2 mg flunixin/kg body weight (approximately 6 mL per 100lb. of body weight), with no more than 10 mL per injection site. This product is available by prescription only from licensed veterinarians, ensuring accurate diagnosis and responsible use.

Managing Endotoxin Load in Cattle Vaccination Programs

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:14:13 GMT

Calves that look rough the day after processing are a familiar sight in both cow-calf and feedlot systems. While infection, handling stress and weather are often blamed, another contributor is increasingly part of veterinary conversations: endotoxin load associated with vaccination.

“Think about if you got the stomach flu and you’re sitting on the couch all day and you just don’t feel good. Same thing with these calves,” says Dr. Jeremi Wurtz, beef cattle technical consultant for Elanco Animal Health, when describing vaccine sweat from endotoxin stacking.

Endotoxin exposure is neither new nor is it inherently harmful. The challenge arises when cumulative exposure overwhelms an animal’s ability to respond appropriately. Understanding how endotoxin stacking occurs and how vaccine design influences that risk gives veterinarians another tool to fine-tune herd health programs.

Why does Endotoxin Load Matter?

Endotoxins, primarily lipopolysaccharides (LPS), are components of the outer membrane and cell wall of gram-negative bacteria. These can make their way into an animal’s system through natural pathogen exposure or through vaccination with killed gram-negative bacterial vaccines.

The concern is not exposure itself, but the cumulative physiologic response when multiple sources are introduced close together.

“Say we vaccinate a calf with a Mannheimia haemolytica vaccine, and then we also vaccinate that same calf with a somnus vaccine, and then we give him a Moraxella vaccine,” Wurtz says. “Sometimes there will be multiple different isolates in those vaccines, and so you’re really loading up the additive effects of those endotoxins.”

When this happens, the endotoxin load can pass a threshold causing that calf to react negatively.

What Endotoxin Load Looks Like in the Field

Clinically, endotoxin reactions can resemble early respiratory disease. Affected calves might be off feed, lethargic and slow to recover after vaccination. Timing is one of the most useful clues: Endotoxin-related responses typically appear about 24 hours post-vaccination.

“It’s usually the next day,” says Wurtz, noting the events surrounding vaccination also influence calf response. “The stress of handling those calves through the chute, maybe going from one pen to another, maybe there was a shipping event, these stressors can cause calves to have more sensitivity to endotoxins.”

The overlap in presentation with other ailments explains why endotoxin effects can go unrecognized or be attributed solely to handling or disease pressure.

Endotoxin Stacking

Endotoxin stacking most often occurs when multiple gram-negative vaccines are administered at the same time. Each product contributes its own endotoxin load and the effects are additive.

“If one vaccine has 80,000 endotoxin units, and the other has another 80,000, and another 80,000, all of a sudden you are now going to really push that calf into a susceptible state,” Wurtz says. “Any time we can minimize the stacking or loading of endotoxins is pretty important.”

In practice, spacing vaccines is not always feasible. Labor, chute time and cattle flow frequently dictate protocol designs, making vaccine selection an important variable.

Is there a Magic Number for Endotoxin Load?

There is no single endotoxin threshold that predicts clinical response.

“To say ‘oh, you have to be under 180,000 endotoxin units’ is not a real proper thing to say because it’s relative,” Wurtz says. “A 900-lb. yearling calf is going to be more tolerant to endotoxin loads than a 300-lb. calf that just got weaned.”

This variability underscores why endotoxin management is best viewed as risk reduction rather than strict compliance. Along with stress, immune and nutritional status also play a role on the endotoxin load a calf can handle.

Vaccine Handling Mistakes can Increase Endotoxins

Vaccine handling plays a critical role in endotoxin release. Freezing, thawing and aggressive agitation can damage cellular components, increasing the amount of free endotoxin delivered at injection.

“A lot of times a vaccine will say shake before using. That doesn’t mean to take it and shake it like crazy, because that can damage the antigens in there and release a lot more free endotoxin as well,” Wurtz advises. “You want to just lightly turn and rotate those vaccines so you don’t overagitate and damage those antigens.”

Proper refrigeration and storage is also important for optimizing antigen delivery by avoiding damage and minimizing free endotoxins within the vaccine.

How Low-Endotoxin Vaccines are Designed

Low-endotoxin vaccines aim to reduce exposure by limiting unnecessary bacterial components. Recombinant and subunit approaches use only the specific antigen required to stimulate immunity, avoiding much of the LPS contained in whole-cell vaccines.

The Nuplura PH and Nuplura PH+5 vaccines from Elanco are examples of these low-endotoxin vaccines. They use recombinant technology to produce and isolate leukotoxin proteins for vaccine incorporation instead of including the whole bacterial cell.

“Any time you have a full cell or cellular components in a vaccine, you’re going to have the risk of having additional endotoxin,” Wurtz says.

Practical Takeaways

Low-endotoxin vaccines are not a replacement for sound herd health planning. They are one component of risk management, alongside careful product selection, realistic stacking decisions and proper handling.

“There’s no magic number to be under for endotoxin load, but anytime we can lower it is a good opportunity,” Wurtz says.

By matching vaccine design to calf risk, veterinarians can reduce unnecessary inflammatory stress while preserving protective immunity, especially when conditions are less than ideal.

Have You Considered Acupuncture for Your Cows?

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:00:53 GMT

With limited tools available for pain and restoring function in food animals, acupuncture, long viewed by many as alternative or fringe, may deserve a second look as a practical, low-risk adjunct for cattle veterinarians.

“It’s another option, but there’s no reason to throw all the Western [medicine] out,” says Dr. Anne Murphy, speaking on Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine (TCVM). “You don’t use it instead of Western veterinary medicine, you use it in addition to.”

One argument for acupuncture in food animals is practicality. It requires no DEA license, carries no residue concerns and does not introduce withdrawal times. Getting trained in acupuncture could arm you with an additional tool to offer your clients for cattle health care.

How Acupuncture Works

Although acupuncture originates from TCVM, Murphy points out that it is directly related to physiology. Acupuncture points are associated with:

high densities of free nerve endings
blood vessels
lymphatics
mast cells

These sites, located along energy pathways termed “meridians” in TCVM, typically demonstrate altered electrical conductivity. Acupuncture procedures along these pathways have had measurable neurologic and analgesic responses.

“Stimulation of acupuncture points can result in pain relief due to the release of beta-endorphins,” Murphy says. “Also, stimulating these points can increase endogenous opioids in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Beyond this, stimulating acupuncture points can influence both immune and reproductive system regulation.

Practical Entry Point for Acupuncture in Cattle

Murphy advises taking a simplified approach based on determining the clinical problem then finding the acupuncture back-shu points associated with that problem, rather than a full TCVM diagnosis. These points can be manually palpated using the ribs as guidance.

This approach is particularly well suited to cattle practice where ease of access is important. Points along the topline and hindquarters are reachable and generally well tolerated.

“On dairy cows, it’s great because they’re so skinny,” Murphy says. “There’s usually a depression, sometimes a prominence, and you use the anatomical landmarks described to figure it out.”

Acupuncture Techniques and Safety

There are a variety of acupuncture techniques that may fit the situation:

Dry needling — Likely the most commonly thought of acupuncture technique, it involves simply inserting a needle.
Electroacupuncture — This couples needle insertion with a TENS unit to pass an electric current between pairs of needles.
Aquapuncture — This involves injecting a liquid, commonly vitamin B12, into acupuncture points for longer-lasting stimulation.
Hemo-acupuncture — This involves releasing blood from injecting the patient’s own blood into acupuncture points.

Murphy also points out a number of cautions when considering acupuncture.

“[Acupuncture point] bladder 60 is between the lateral malleolus of the tibia and the calcaneian tuber,” Murphy explains. “It’s known as the aspirin point, but it also promotes parturition. So, don’t use it in pregnant cows unless you want to induce parturition.”

She also cautioned against needling near tumors due to increased blood flow and being conscious of animal tolerance to avoid needle breakage or loss.

Why Acupuncture May Be Worth Considering

Murphy acknowledges that acupuncture might not always be the answer.

“Sometimes, acupuncture is like magic, which is super exciting. It’s not always like magic, and sometimes it doesn’t work at all, but it’s definitely worth trying in certain situations,” Murphy says.

However, the same could be said for Western medicine.

When analgesic tools are scarce and animal comfort matters, acupuncture may offer a meaningful benefit at relatively low risk.

“Acupuncture is a great tool for pain management and treatment of nerve damage in food animals,” Murphy says in closing. “But hopefully, success with a few acupuncture points will inspire you to investigate TCVM further.”

Why Subacute Rumen Adicosis in Calves Often Goes Unrecognized

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 18:26:19 GMT

Subacute rumen acidosis (SARA) is well defined in adult cattle, but in calves it often goes undiagnosed — not because it is rare, but because it lacks a clear definition. Increasingly, research and field observations suggest fermentative disturbances during weaning are common in calves, yet difficult to distinguish from normal developmental changes.

“In adult cattle, we have established thresholds for acidosis to detect and define it: 5.8, 5.6, some people even say 6.0 if you’re using the reticulorumen bolus,” says Gustavo Mazon, nutritionist at Axiota Animal Health. “But in calves, we still don’t have that magic number because the rumen of the calf is more acidic than the rumen of a cow.”

Rumen acidosis diagnosis in adult cattle is built around discrete pH thresholds and production responses. In calves, however, rumen function is still developing, immune function is being actively shaped, and fermentation patterns differ fundamentally from those of mature cattle. These factors blur the line between normal adaptation and pathological acid stress.

Why Calf Rumen Acidosis Is Hard to Define

One of the central challenges in recognizing SARA in calves is that calves routinely operate at rumen pH values that would be considered acidotic in adult cattle. Continuous monitoring studies show rumen pH commonly averages near 5.2 to 5.6 during the weaning period, even in otherwise healthy calves.

Indeed, additional work by Anne Laarman from the University of Alberta observed calves fed varying starters consistently had a rumen pH value dropping to 5.0 to 5.2, levels that would make adult cattle clinically sick fairly quickly.

Average rumen pH values for calves consuming a calf starter with 18.8% ground corn (·····; n=9), 10.1% beet pulp (—; n=14), or 18.6% triticale dried distillers grains with solubles (- - -; n=11). Calves were fed calf starter once per day at 0600h (arrow).

(Journal of Dairy Science (2012). DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4822)

“These calves had no clinical symptoms. pH just recovered every day. It was really quite something to see. And we’ve since seen that in multiple studies, no matter how we measure it,” says Laarman, discussing the study on a Heifer Academy webinar .

According to Laarman, this lower pH appears to be a tolerated, and possibly adaptive, feature of early rumen development rather than an immediate clinical failure. Calves are biologically primed to accommodate rapid microbial colonization and fermentation, which complicates attempts to apply adult SARA definitions directly to young animals.

Several factors contribute to why SARA in calves remains poorly defined and easily overlooked:

Adult diagnostic thresholds do not translate well to calves.
Low rumen pH is common during normal weaning.
Clinical signs are subtle or absent, with changes often limited to intake patterns or behavior rather than overt disease.
Rumen development, immune maturation and fermentation occur simultaneously, obscuring cause-and-effect relationships.
Field monitoring of rumen pH in calves is uncommon, limiting real-world recognition of acidotic patterns.

The consequence is a diagnostic gray zone: fermentation patterns that would raise concern in adult cattle are often normalized in calves, even though they may still carry biological cost.

Weaning: Fermentation Outpaces Rumen Maturity

“The transition from milk to grain is very important in calves,” Mazon says. “In the natural environment, you’re going to have a calf that’s going to nurse for eight, nine months and develop the rumen very slowly. We’re trying to develop that rumen now in the dairy industry within less than two months.”

Weaning represents a compressed and intense transition from a milk-based diet to reliance on solid feed. The intake of starter feed, which is high in starch and non-fibrous carbohydrates, drives volatile fatty acid production, which is necessary for rumen papillae development. However, research has demonstrated that fermentation frequently accelerates faster than the rumen’s buffering and absorptive capacity.

During this window, calves experience prolonged exposure to acidic conditions without overt clinical signs. This aligns with Laarman’s observation that calves appear remarkably tolerant of low rumen pH during early life — a tolerance that may mask fermentative stress rather than eliminate it.

Rumen Development Under Acidic Conditions

While starter intake is essential, research increasingly suggests the pace and stability of fermentation matter as much as intake itself. Highly fermentable starter diets have been associated with altered rumen morphology , epithelial gene expression and fermentation profiles consistent with acid stress.

Rather than supporting orderly development, early and sustained acid exposure, which can carry through to the hindgut, may compromise epithelial integrity or absorptive efficiency. This challenges the assumption that faster rumen development is always better and raises questions about whether some calves are adapting to, rather than thriving under, acidic conditions.

Behavioral Changes: Subtle but Informative

With SARA, calves may show subtle behavioral changes, including altered feeding patterns and non-nutritive oral behaviors.

“We might see a lot of bar biting. If your calves are in hutches or pens you’re going to see them doing a lot of oral manipulation,” Mazon says. “In animal behavior, we say that every behavior has a form and a function. The form is they’re going to tongue roll, they’re going to bite the bars, they’re going to try to eat bedding, or they might constantly lick their hair. They’re going perform these behaviors to stimulate saliva production to buffer the rumen.”

These oral behaviors have also been observed in lambs and goat kids fed high concentrate diets. From a practical standpoint, behavior may be one of the earliest indicators fermentation is not proceeding smoothly, yet it is rarely interpreted through a rumen health lens.

Although these, sometimes subtle, behavioral signs are associated with SARA in calves, the presence of bubbles in loose feces and occurrence of ruminal bloats during the weaning and postweaning periods are other common indicators of SARA in calves.

Redefining Rumen Acidosis in the Growing Calf

The resilience of the neonatal rumen is remarkable, yet the lack of a clear clinical definition for SARA in calves remains a significant barrier to optimizing animal welfare. While calves appear biologically primed to tolerate acidic conditions during weaning, the long-term biological cost of this “adaptive” stress on gut integrity and immune maturation remains a critical area for study. Bridging the gap between adult SARA definitions and calf-specific physiology will be essential for developing the next generation of precision weaning strategies that support, rather than stress, the developing ruminant.

France Says Lumpy Skin Disease Is Under Control as Farmer Protests Intensify

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:50:21 GMT

France has declared the lumpy skin disease (LSD) outbreak in its cattle population under control, yet nationwide protests continue over the government’s strict culling policies.

Farmers have blocked highways, dumped manure and staged bonfires to oppose the slaughter of entire herds. The crisis underscores the tension between disease containment and the livelihoods of rural communities.

LSD and the French Outbreak

LSD is a highly contagious viral infection transmitted by biting insects, primarily affecting cattle and buffalo.

Infected animals show the following symptoms:

Painful skin nodules across the body.
Fever and general malaise.
Reduced milk production.

While LSD is harmless to humans, the economic consequences are severe. The disease can devastate herd productivity, trigger international trade restrictions and has historically led to the culling of thousands of cattle in Europe.

Since the first reported case in June 2025, France has confirmed 113 LSD outbreaks leading to the slaughter of 3,300 cattle, or 0.02% of the French herd, according to Minister of Agriculture Annie Genevard. Farmers are being compensated for their losses; nearly 6 million euros have been paid since June.

“This disease must be eradicated. Otherwise, it could cause the death of 10% of French livestock,” Genevard says.

Farmer Opposition to Culling

French rules require the entire herd to be culled when an outbreak is detected, a practice many farmers oppose. Groups, such as Coordination Rurale, argue that slaughtering entire herds, including healthy animals, is unnecessary and economically devastating. They are instead calling for targeted measures and quarantine protocols.

🔴 #DNC — La Coordination Rurale sur @BFMTV : “Yes to vaccination, but stop to total slaughter. It’s no longer acceptable for farmers.” François Turpeau, president of the CR86. Guest on BFM TV, the President of the Coordination Rurale 86 denounced an absurd health protocol that continues to impose the systematic slaughter of entire herds, including vaccinated animals. pic.twitter.com/NSzTWqqrZR
— Coordination Rurale (@coordinationrur) December 16, 2025

“Yes to vaccination, but stop to total slaughter. It’s no longer acceptable for farmers,” says François Turpeau, president of Coordination Rurale 86.

Protests against these extreme culling measures began late last week, with farmers parking their tractors to block major highways in the country. In multiple communities, farmers have gathered outside town halls and government buildings, at times dumping or spraying manure.

Containment Strategy: Vaccination and Movement Restrictions

To curb the disease’s spread while attempting to address farmer concerns, the French Ministry of Agriculture has launched a combined strategy:

Compulsory, government-paid vaccination: A vaccination program is planned to start in the Occitanie region, targeting designated high-risk areas. The program will cover nearly 1 million cattle.
Strict movement rules: Farmers must now give 24 hours’ notice for any planned transportation of cattle, allowing authorities to monitor and restrict movement swiftly.
Transportation equipment disinfection: All equipment used for the movement of cattle outside of France must be completely sanitized.

International Implications

Although LSD has not been detected in the U.S., the French outbreak provides a cautionary tale for American cattle producers and demonstrates the challenges of balancing public health, livestock production and farmer livelihoods.

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has developed standard operating procedures for LSD preparedness and response.

Elanco Animal Health Shifts Focus to U.S., Redefining Livestock R&D and Manufacturing

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 23:55:59 GMT

Elanco Animal Health is restructuring its global operations, shifting investment toward the U.S., while reducing parts of its overseas footprint. During its 2025 Investor Day , the company announced plans to close its German animal health R&D facility and implemented targeted reductions to parts of its manufacturing workforce. Elanco plans to boost investment in U.S.-based innovation and manufacturing, pointing to greater clarity around tariffs and accelerated USDA regulatory times central factors.

“We made some big announcements,” says Jeff Simmons, Elanco CEO. “We rolled out a very strong growth agenda. A portfolio of historical innovation serving farmers, veterinarians, pet owners, livestock and industry. And it really leads to this growth agenda: a $400 million investment in American manufacturing and R&D.”

Consolidation Abroad, Investment at Home

As part of the restructuring, Elanco will shut down its German R&D site and reduce certain manufacturing operations abroad. According to the company, these actions are designed to streamline operations and consolidate resources where regulatory processes and market access are more predictable. At the same time, Elanco is redirecting capital toward its Innovation Laboratories at the company’s Indiana headquarters, a move intended to bring discovery, development and regulatory preparation under a unified roof.

For livestock veterinarians and producers, this consolidation could translate into more efficient development and approval of animal-health products. Shorter regulatory lead times and centralized R&D could improve the company’s ability to respond to evolving disease threats and to deliver vaccines, biologics or therapeutics in a more timely and consistent manner.

“Elanco is focused on delivering innovation into the farm animal space and creating more value for producers and veterinarians,” says Colleen Dekker of Elanco. “Farmers and veterinarians should expect Elanco to continue to focus on bringing innovation designed to meet their biggest challenges supported by a team of technical experts.”

Building the One Health Innovation District in Indiana

Beyond the R&D and manufacturing shifts, Elanco is laying down physical roots in Indiana. In late August, the company announced the purchase of a 56-acre parcel of state-owned land, part of a former GM stamping plant, for $27 million. This plot sits adjacent to previously acquired land already earmarked for its new global headquarters campus. Together, these parcels form the foundation for a planned One Health Innovation District.

This district is envisioned to house research facilities, diagnostic and pilot-scale labs, clinical animal care facilities and collaboration spaces linking industry, academic researchers and other partners. In partnership with Purdue University and the state of Indiana, the development aims to foster a research ecosystem bridging animal, human and environmental health.

For those in food animal health, the district offers closer collaboration between academic science and industry application. That proximity could accelerate development of herd-level solutions for disease management, biosecurity and animal welfare.

What it Means for the Product Pipeline

At Investor Day, Elanco laid out an expectation of five to six major differentiated product approvals between 2026 and 2031. Much of the public focus to date has been on the company’s companion-animal pipeline, including immuno-therapeutics and monoclonal antibodies. Elanco also flagged a potential first-in-class pet immunotherapy, with a projected market launch within the next two to three years, aided by regulatory acceleration under USDA.

While these disclosures emphasize pets, the broader platforms and infrastructure supporting them could also benefit livestock-focused research and development. Biologics, immune-modulating technologies and vaccine platforms developed for companion animals often inform approaches for food animals. The experience gained in those platforms could translate to cattle or swine health solutions.

Implications for Livestock Veterinarians and Producers

Elanco’s shift reflects a transition in how and where food-animal health work gets done. By consolidating R&D and manufacturing in the U.S., the company aims to improve coordination among product development, regulatory preparation and supply chain logistics, factors that affect availability and reliability of herd-health tools.

This transition is worth watching as Elanco’s expanded U.S. infrastructure supports future livestock product development within a more centralized regulatory and manufacturing framework. New product launches and regulatory activity will provide insight into how these investments translate into vaccines, parasiticides and therapeutics relevant to production animal medicine.

Managing Heifer Mastitis: Targeting Risk Before Freshening

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 20:44:54 GMT

Heifer mastitis is often underestimated because it occurs before an animal has even entered the milking string, but the impacts are long-lasting. Subclinical infections at calving are linked to reduced production across the entire first lactation and often throughout the cow’s lifetime. For a class of animals that has yet to return any of their rearing investment, those losses are magnified.

“It’s been identified that an animal with an increased somatic cell count in the early parts of their first lactation, those animals produce less milk throughout that first lactation and many times have decreased milk production throughout their lifetime,” says Dr. Pamela Adkins of the University of Missouri. “So we are starting out of the gate not performing as well as we could, which obviously can be quite expensive.”

Based on data presented by Adkins, what’s becoming increasingly clear from recent research is heifer mastitis is not simply early-lactation mastitis in small cows. The timing, pathogen profile and management leverage points are all distinct. Because most new infections occur before the heifer ever enters the parlor, this disease demands a prevention strategy tailored to prepartum animals.

How is mastitis in heifers different from mastitis in older cows?

Across multiple studies, higher incidences of clinical mastitis have been observed in heifers during the first few days of lactation compared to older cows.

“It’s likely that those heifers acquire those infections prior to the onset of lactation,” Adkins explains. “Therefore, a lot of our focus potentially needs to be before lactation.”

This represents a shift from how we think about lactating cows.

Culture studies of heifers reinforce this: 29% to 75% of quarters can be culture-positive before calving and over 80% may be positive at first calving and in early lactation. In older cows, early lactation infection rates tend to be around 30%.

What kinds of bacteria are causing heifer mastitis?

The types of pathogens causing infection in heifers differs from those of adult cows. Heifers show a high prevalence of infection with non-aureus staphylococci (NAS), a lower prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus, and a higher prevalence of Streptococcus spp. compared to multiparous cows.

NAS are the most common isolates in heifers, especially Staphylococcus chromogenes. These are generally considered minor mastitis pathogens as they cause only a minor inflammatory response, but Adkins advises not ignoring these bacteria because they are highly prevalent.

Interestingly, NAS infection has been linked with lower incidence of clinical mastitis, and NAS inhibit the growth of pathogen bacteria in lab settings. These results suggest NAS could have a protective effect, but Adkins acknowledges there is a lot more in vitro and in vivo work to be done on this topic.

While not the largest contributor to heifer mastitis, S. aureus infection is still common. However, without the usual parlor-based transmission pathways, the question becomes how these heifers are becoming infected.

“In older cows, we consider the parlor the major concern of where the pathogen is coming from. We know [S. aureus] can be contagious, spread from cow to cow, and we think about that happening during milking time,” Adkins says. “Obviously that’s not happening yet in heifers. Therefore, we need to think of other factors that are important in heifers.”

Some older work looked into where S. aureus was found across seven dairies. Looking beyond milk and colostrum, isolates were found on the udder skin, muzzle, rectum and vagina. Adkins proposes these body sites were an important source of S. aureus infection for heifers. These infections also vary with geography and environment. The risk factors associated with an individual farm’s management and location need to be taken into consideration.

When are heifers most at risk of getting intramammary infections?

“In order to be able to prevent it, we need to know where we should focus so that we can implement prevention strategies at the right time points to help reduce infections,” Adkins says.

Work from her own lab sampled 304 quarters from 152 Holstein heifers. In comparing primigravid and nulligravid heifers, they found pregnant heifers had a higher incidence of positive quarters than non-pregnant heifers.

“Gestation and development of the [mammary] gland associated with pregnancy seem to be risk factors for increased prevalence of intramammary infections,” Adkins says.

These infections, in both pregnant and non-pregnant heifers, are significant because that animal is still growing and developing. Any infection could interrupt that process.

How do we diagnose heifer mastitis?

Without the usual diagnostic pathway of milk culture available, defining an intramammary infection in a heifer can be a bit tricky. In most young and early gestation heifers, there isn’t enough secretion present in the mammary gland to collect a meaningful sample. Collecting swabs from the teat or teat canal might be the best option at the moment, but it might not tell the whole story either.

“A lot of bacteria hang out just in the teat canal or the teat sphincter. They don’t necessarily go up into the gland,” Adkins explains. “If we just culture the end of the teat we can find bacteria that maybe aren’t causing a problem, which complicates our definitions [of infection].”

In research, needle based methods are used to bypass the teat end and go directly to the glandular tissue. However, these methods have not been validated in the field, and Adkins heavily advises against their use on farms.

Herd level factors you should review during your visit:

Overall herd udder health: Herds with lower overall somatic cell counts tend to have less heifer mastitis. Good management practices for lactating cows influence heifer health.
Early-life management: Heifers from farms with strong colostrum SOPs show lower mastitis rates, likely due to both enhanced immunity and overall better heifer oversight. Cross-suckling remains a concern due to teat end damage.
Fly control: It has been well documented that flies can carry mastitis pathogens and move directly between teat ends.
Contact with mature cows: Some research has linked prepartum commingling with increased mastitis risk, possibly due to both pathogen exposure and stress.
Time in calving area: Longer stays in heavily contaminated maternity environments significantly increase exposure risk.

Luckily, a lot of these factors come down to management decisions.

“Heifer mastitis is a major concern in many herds. Management is always a consideration for mastitis and a major consideration in heifers as well,” Adkins says. “Mammary health is related to herd level mammary health. So taking care of mastitis at all fronts is important, and considering environmental management strategies for your heifers is vital to try to reduce infections in these animals.”

Clinical Takeaways for Vets: Managing Heifer Mastitis

Think prepartum, not parlor. Most intramammary infections in heifers are acquired before calving; prevention efforts must target the rearing and prefresh periods.

Expect a different pathogen profile. NAS (especially S. chromogenes) and Streptococci dominate. S. aureus is present but less tied to parlors and more to skin, mucosal and environmental sources.

Use herd somatic cell count as a proxy. Herds with low bulk-tank and lactating-cow SCC typically have fewer heifer infections; poor overall udder health is a red flag to investigate replacements.

Audit early-life management. Verify colostrum SOPs, prevent cross-suckling, evaluate fly burden and assess cleanliness/turnover of prefresh and calving areas. These are high-yield levers.

Beware diagnostic pitfalls. Teat-end swabs overcall “infection”; needle sampling is research-only and not appropriate on-farm. Focus on first-test-day SCC and targeted cultures from clinical quarters postcalving.

Targeted protocols over blanket therapy. Emphasize environmental and management changes first. Use selective culture-based treatment strategies in fresh heifers rather than routine prepartum intramammary therapy.