Veterinary Medicine

7 Reasons Your Deworming Program Isn’t Working

Tue, 12 May 2026 18:09:15 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 19:35:29 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.”

Axiota Animal Health Names Wamego as Global Headquarters

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 12:37:28 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 20:19:01 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.

Compounded Drugs in Livestock: Regulations, Uses and Benefits

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:25:24 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 16:31:01 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.

When and How to Implant Calves on Cow-Calf Operations

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 14:56:00 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 19:55:54 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.

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 17:14:16 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.

FDA Approves Exzolt Cattle-CA1 for Prevention and Treatment of New World Screwworm

Thu, 04 Dec 2025 18:42:23 GMT

On December 4, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted conditional approval to Exzolt Cattle-CA1, a fluralaner topical solution from Merck Animal Health, for the use in beef cattle (≥ 2 months of age) and replacement dairy heifers (< 20 months of age). The approved uses include prevention and treatment of larval infestations by New World screwworm (NWS), and treatment and control of cattle fever tick.

“The FDA is leveraging every resource and authority at its disposal to ensure producers and veterinarians have the critical products they need to protect their livestock and safeguard our food supply against NWS and cattle fever tick,” said Timothy Schell, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, in a press release . “We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that animal drugs are safe and effective and that food from treated animals is safe to eat.”

While NWS has not yet been detected in the U.S., the threat persists just south of the border with a new case being reported yesterday. Cattle fever ticks, present along the U.S.-Mexico border in south Texas, are competent vectors of Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina — agents of bovine babesiosis (Texas cattle fever).

“The threat of New World screwworm represents a growing concern to U.S. agriculture, potentially causing devastating economic losses for cattle producers that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Rick DeLuca, president of Merck Animal Health, in a news release . “We worked closely with the FDA to accelerate availability so that veterinarians and cattle producers will have access to a powerful new tool to protect cattle from these serious parasites, helping to safeguard the industry’s economic future and the nation’s beef supply.”

The conditional approval status reflects FDA’s determination that Exzolt Cattle-CA1 is safe for its labeled use and is reasonably expected to be effective, while requiring that its sponsor, Merck Animal Health, submit further data demonstrating its effectiveness over the next five years to support full approval.

Administration and Use Considerations

Exzolt Cattle-CA1 is a ready-to-use pour-on that delivers the active ingredient, fluralaner, to act systemically against infestations. Administration involves applying a narrow band of the solution from between the shoulder blades to the tailhead. It will be available in the first quarter of 2026 by prescription in 250 mL, 1 L or 5 L bottles.

After administration, there is a 98-day withdrawal period before slaughter to ensure meat from treated animals is free of drug residues. Use is prohibited in lactating dairy cattle, dairy calves, veal calves or bulls over one year of age that are intended for breeding.

This approval of Exzolt Cattle-CA1 complements that of Dectomax-CA1 , which was authorized in September 2025 for prevention and treatment of NWS infestations in cattle. Together, these two products give veterinarians and producers their first pharmacologic defenses against NWS.

Tackling Winter Lice in Cattle

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 21:11:59 GMT

As temperatures drop and cattle begin experiencing the physiological stressors of winter, external parasites, especially lice, move from being a background nuisance to economically meaningful threats. In a recent discussion on “ DocTalk ,” Kansas State Beef Veterinarian Dr. A.J. Tarpoff outlined what practitioners need to know about lice biology, diagnosis, treatment timing and client communication. Winter-specific parasite management is critical to prevent losses that occur when herds remain untreated or undertreated.

Lice: The Dominant Winter Parasite

Lice remain the most impactful external parasite of cattle during winter months. As Tarpoff emphasizes, lice are highly species specific. Cattle lice do not infest humans, horses or other livestock.

“If your cattle have lice, don’t worry about your kids having lice going to school,” Tarpoff explains. “There are very specific cattle lice that affect our animals.”

This simple clarification can be valuable in client conversations, especially when producers worry about cross-species transmission.

Cattle host two functional groups of lice: sucking lice, which pierce the skin and feed on blood, and biting lice, which feed on skin debris and hair. Both groups spend their entire life cycle on the animal, being mostly dormant in the summer.

“Adult lice will actually hide out in different areas around the ears and eyes,” Tarpoff says. “They really don’t like hot weather, so they go into a dormant state. Now, once the cooler weather starts, that’s where they really jump-start their reproductive cycles.”

Once winter sets in, egg laying accelerates. Eggs, or nits, are cemented to hair shafts with a glue-like substance, hatch into nymphs and develop into egg-laying adults in approximately 28 to 30 days. This predictable cycle can be used to inform treatment expectations and retreatment intervals.

Clinical and Economic Consequences

By the time cattle are visibly rubbing against posts and fences, the infestation is well advanced. The clinical hallmarks of a lice infestations are:

Patchy hair loss over the neck, withers and rump
Intense apparent itchiness and restless behavior
Fence post, building and equipment damage from rubbing
Reduced performance, including decreased average daily gain (by up to 0.2 lb. per day), lower milk production and worsening body condition

“You know when you pull into the feedyard and just kind of zone out and don’t focus on anything,” Tarpoff says. “You look across the yard and all of a sudden say, ‘holy moley, everything’s up against the fence rubbing.’ It’s pretty obvious that we need to have a talk about lice.”

Industrywide, lice contribute to an estimated $125 million in annual losses, a figure driven by reduced productivity and infrastructure damage. Practitioners often struggle to quantify the latter, but any producer who has replaced a stretch of barbed wire knows the cost.

Diagnosing Infestation Before It Escalates

Waiting for obvious rubbing means the opportunity for early intervention has already passed. Tarpoff recommends a practical chute-side evaluation.

“We can part the hair on the neck, the withers, the rump and actually see the little lice,” he says. “They’re about the size of a grain of sand. We can see them scurrying around and if there’s roughly 10 lice per square inch, they definitely need to be treated.”

Fall Deworming Isn’t Enough

Many fall processing protocols include a macrocyclic lactone (pour-on or injectable) intended to clean up internal parasites after summer grazing. While these products provide some lice control, they are imperfect winter solutions. Injectable macrocyclic lactones only kill sucking lice, not biting lice. Pour-ons kill both, but residual activity rarely extends into peak winter months.

This leaves a winter window where live populations surge despite fall treatments. This is often mistaken for product failure rather than an issue of timing and louse biology.

Winter Topical Products for Active Outbreaks

For true winter control, contact-based topical insecticides are the most appropriate tools. These products require direct contact with adult lice to be effective. They do not kill eggs, making retreatment crucial. A second application in two to three weeks ensures newly hatched nymphs are eliminated.

“I see people that are have issues in their cows, and they’ll say, ‘Well, I put it on twice already, and it didn’t do anything,’” Tarpoff says. More often than not, these are issues with the treatment application not covering the entirety of the animal. “The majority of these products … don’t absorb into the bloodstream. They work on contact, and they have to come in physical contact with those lice.”

Don’t Overlook Biosecurity

Even a perfectly executed treatment protocol fails if every animal is not treated. A single untreated bull or newly purchased replacement heifer can reinfest the whole herd within weeks. Tarpoll recommends treating new arrivals upon entry and maintaining a short quarantine period until their lice load is confirmed cleared. This biosecurity step prevents chronic reinfestation cycles.

The key messages for veterinarians to reinforce with their clients are:

Winter lice require winter treatments. Fall dewormers are not a full-season solution.
Coverage matters more than chemistry. Application technique determines outcomes.
Plan for retreatment. One round rarely solves the problem.
Treat the whole herd. Biosecurity is essential for long-term control.

Equine Herpesvirus Cases Continue to Climb After Outbreak in Texas

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 21:05:33 GMT

A wave of concern is sweeping across the U.S. equine industry as a cluster of confirmed cases of Equine Herpesvirus-1 (EHV-1) has been linked to the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association World Finals and Elite Barrel Race event held November 5-9 in Waco, Texas. Since this event, EHV-1 infection has led to 15 confirmed cases of equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy (EHM) with seven cases in Texas, three each in Louisiana and Oklahoma, and one each in Colorado and New Mexico.

This number has doubled in the past 36 hours, according to case reports by the Equine Disease Communication Center .

EHV-1 is a highly contagious virus in horses that can cause respiratory and reproductive issues and neurological disease. It spreads among horses through direct contact with respiratory secretions, inhalation of aerosolized respiratory droplets (distances less than 30'), or contact with contaminated people or equipment.

With virus spread possible, it’s important to be vigilant with quarantining and reducing exposure. This includes preventing the movement of exposed horses, and avoiding sharing any grooming equipment, water and feed sources, or any other tools between infected and healthy horses. Also take care to change your clothes and thoroughly wash your hands and arms after working with infected horses. It is important to note that this virus can survive in the environment for several weeks.

Texas agriculture commissioner Sid Miller issued an alert earlier this week:

“The virus can spread fast, it can be deadly, and the earliest signs are often so subtle they’re easy to miss. That’s why monitoring your horses right now is critical. The quicker we identify a potential case, the better chance we have to protect not only our animals, but the entire Texas equine community.”

Monitoring for and Limiting EHV-1 Infection

The clinical signs of EHM include:

Fever
Incoordination or limb weakness (especially hind limbs)
Urine dribbling
Decreased tail or anal tone
Inability to stand

Dr. Dusty Nagy, chief medical officer of the Texas A&M Large Animal Hospital, advises horse owners, trainers and practitioners to closely monitor their animals and check their temperatures at least twice daily. Fever is often the first indicator of EHM, but can it fluctuate through the day.

Nagy believes the numbers will only climb as the incubation period for the initial exposure increases.

“I do think that is probably an understatement for where we are right now as there’s a lot of testing pending,” Nagy says. “There are definitely horses out there that have been exposed, that are shedding, that appear healthy.”

To prevent further spread of this highly infectious virus, Nagy urges all horse owners to quarantine their horses.

“I recognize that there’s a lot of high end equine athletes that are involved in this, and this is a big time of the year for them. That’s a hard recommendation to take, but I do think the easiest way to stop or slow it down is to stop animal movement,” Nagy says.

Emergency FDA Approval Sought for Tick-Borne Cattle Disease Treatment

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 19:00:05 GMT

The Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) has submitted a request to USDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine requesting emergency approval for the medication buparvaquone to treat cattle infected with theileriosis, the disease transmitted by the Asian longhorned tick (ALHT).

The letter , penned by R. M Thornsberry, chairman of the R-CALF USA Animal Health Committee, asks the FDA to take action to combat the disease, which has been spreading in the United States since 2017 when its carrier was introduced. Since then, the ALHT has been identified in 21 states, most recently as far west as Kansas .

“As a food animal veterinarian, I can prescribe appropriate treatment protocols for tick control, but I must watch my client’s cattle die because I have no approved therapeutic protocols to treat a properly diagnosed case of theileriosis,” Thornsberry writes.

Buparvaquone has a history of use for the treatment of theileriosis in other regions including Asia, Africa, Pacific Island nations and the Middle East. R-CALF USA proposes extended withdrawal times to ensure food safety.

Signs of theileriosis infection in cattle include:

Weakness
Fever
Loss of appetite
Difficulty breathing
Reduced milk production
Foamy nasal discharge

Pregnant cows and calves are most susceptible to infection, and once infected, cattle can be lifetime carriers.

As the ALHT continues to expand its range, the approval of this medicine could be very important for nationwide cattle health.

For more information:
Theileria and the Asian Longhorned Tick: What Beef Producers Need to Know

Vesicular Stomatitis Outbreak in Arizona

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 16:34:09 GMT

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has released a situation report on vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) after the virus was identified on two Arizona farms this month.

While both reported cases were in horses, VSV also affects cattle, swine and other ruminants. The farms on which the virus was identified both also house cattle, though none have been found to be clinically affected.

In response to this outbreak, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has announced temporary import restrictions on horses, ruminants and swine from the U.S. until further notice. The import of horses, swine and ruminants from VSV-affected states for all purposes is prohibited. Animals from other states that have been in a VSV-affected state at any point in the three weeks prior to import will be denied entry to Canada. Special accommodations have been made in collaboration with USDA regarding animal import for major Canadian livestock competitions and exhibitions.

What is Vesicular Stomatitis?

Vesicular stomatitis (VS) is a viral disease primarily spread by biting midges and flies, but can also be spread via animal-to-animal contact or exposure to saliva or fluid from ruptured vesicles. It is also important to protect yourself if working with infected animals as it is transmissible to humans causing an acute influenza-like illness.

VS is named for its characteristic vesicular lesions that form around the mouth, nose, udders and hooves. Along with these lesions, clinical signs of VS include:

excessive salivation (often accompanied by raised blisters on the lips, gums and tongue)
fever
feed withdrawal leading to weight loss

In cattle and horses, lesions around the hooves can lead to lameness, while teat lesions in dairy cattle can lead to mastitis and a severe drop in milk production. Affected swine usually first show signs of lameness caused by foot lesions.

Controlling Vesicular Stomatitis

While VS does not usually cause the death of an animal, it can lead to economic losses due to prevented animal movement and impacts on international trace. Farms with VSV positive animals must quarantine for 14 days after lesions appear on the last case at the location.

The last VS outbreak occurred from May 2023 through January 2024 affecting 319 locations across California, Nevada and Texas. VSV circulates annually between livestock and insect vectors in southern Mexico, only entering the U.S. when environmental factors support the northern movement of vectors.

If you suspect an animal might be infected with VSV, you should immediately contact local state and federal animal health authorities.

Europe's Outbreaks Raise Alarms: Is Lumpy Skin Disease Headed Here?

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 13:43:17 GMT

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is making its way through Western Europe. There is a current outbreak in France with recent cases being reported along the Spanish border. First seen in Zambia in 1929, the disease has since spread north through Africa with outbreaks in Israel in 1989, the Middle East in the 2000s, and in 2013 it was detected in Turkey and the Balkans. Since then, LSD has been reported in Georgia, Russia, Bangladesh and China. LSD has never been detected in the Western hemisphere or Australia.

LSD is an infectious disease of cattle and water buffalo. It is characterized by firm, round nodules on the skin, mucous membranes and internal organs that can ulcerate, fever, emaciation, enlarged lymph nodes, skin edema, decreased fertility and can result in death. Cattle affected by LSD have exhibited physical weakness, reduced milk production, poor growth, infertility and increased abortion rates.

LSD is transmitted primarily through blood-feeding insect bites (flies, mosquitoes, ticks), but it can also be spread by direct contact between animals. Control relies on prompt detection, control of animal movement and vaccination.

While this virus is not a threat to humans, its production impacts on cattle can be severe. LSD morbidity can vary widely between herds depending on vaccination status. Mortality is usually low, but production losses result in an economic hit for producers due to decreased performance, costs of care and the potential for trade bans. In addition, secondary bacterial infections of the skin lesions can increase morbidity and extend recovery times. Because biting insects are the main transmission route, LSD risk is seasonal, increasing during warm, wet periods.

The Current LSD Situation

In 2025, several western and southern European countries that had been free of LSD reported their first confirmed outbreaks. Italy and France recorded initial cases in June, while Spain reported its first case this month. Last week, France banned cattle exports and bullfighting, while Spain announced a cull of affected animals and export limitations as LSD continues to spread.

La dermatosis nodular llega a España y frena el millonario negocio de vacuno con Marruecoshttps://t.co/WetPY0WLTI
— Efeagro (@Efeagro) October 15, 2025

Authorities in affected countries have implemented vaccination campaigns, movement controls and heightened surveillance. Regional and international bodies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health, have convened experts to coordinate a response and have put together information sheets to aid in the development of LSD Contigency Plans and to answer any LSD vaccination questions .

What the U.S. Needs to Know

To date, the U.S. has not reported endemic LSD in domestic cattle, but USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has developed standard operating procedures for the disease. This document is meant to bolster the preparedness of the U.S. for LSD occurrence and outlines the ecology of LSD, as well as information on vaccination and disease control. The FAO has also created an accredited veterinary LSD preparedness course .

The sudden appearance of characteristic skin nodules, concurrent fever or unexplained drops in milk yield should be treated as suspicious and warrant immediate reporting to state animal health officials.

The following are some practical points for producers and vets surrounding LSD:

Know the signs: Multiple round, firm skin nodules (sometimes with ulceration), fever, swollen lymph nodes and sharp milk production drops.
Report quickly: Early notification to a veterinarian and a state health official triggers tracing, testing and control measures that limit spread.
Vector reduction: Reduce insect breeding sites, use physical barriers (screens and fans), and consider using insecticides to lower transmission.
Movement control and biosecurity: Quarantine suspect animals, disinfect equipment and limit personnel traffic to reduce mechanical spread.
Vaccination planning: Where outbreaks have occurred, mass vaccination has been a key tool to control spread. No specific LSD vaccine is currently approved for use in the U.S. as it has not been prevalent here.

LSD is primarily an animal health and economic threat rather than a public health threat, but its expanding geographic reach over the past decade should put previously unaffected regions on alert.

Veterinarian Becomes Disease Detective: Nichols Connects Animal Disease and Human Health

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 19:24:04 GMT

Growing up on a New Mexico ranch, veterinarian and public health leader Megin Nichols says she learned early the health of animals, humans and the environment are deeply connected.

Initially planning to practice small animal medicine, she says her plans began to pivot when she met a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) epidemic intelligence service officer who sparked her interest in public health. That realization led her to pursue a master’s degree in public health at the University of Minnesota, with a focus on food safety and biosecurity. Her career has included roles in local, state and federal health departments, investigating foodborne illness outbreaks and developing strategies to prevent them.

“Life has a way of taking you in places you never anticipated,” she shared during the 2025 Henry C. Gardiner Global Food Systems Lecture Oct. 6 at Kansas State University.

Today, as the CDC’s director in the division of foodborne, waterborne and environmental diseases, she lends her expertise to efforts involving disease investigation, food safety, antimicrobial resistance and agriculture literacy.

Megin Nichols has more than 15 years of zoonotic disease experience and has served at the federal and state levels. She has served as the lead of the Enteric Zoonoses Team investigating multistate outbreaks of Salmonella and E. coli. Prior to joining CDC, Nichols worked as the Principal Investigator of the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance Program at the New Mexico Department of Health for five years.

(Angie Stump Denton)

One Health: Connecting Animal Disease and Human Health

Nichols’ work focuses on the One Health concept.

“One Health is recognizing the health and well-being of humans, of animals and our environment are all interconnected,” she explains. “One Health is something that many of us do every single day and are very, very aware of, especially if you have ties to agriculture and the land. But One Health as a concept oftentimes is difficult to fully understand.”

Nichols says One Health is:

Ongoing relationships with animal agencies.
Understand the culture of agriculture.
Having access to integrated human and animal surveillance.
Protocols for conducting joint response investigations.
Agreements for sharing biological samples and lab results.
Established lines of communication with agriculture and animal industry.
Plans for unified communication messaging.
Need to build linkages and trust before and outbreak.

“What happens in one area can significantly impact others — whether it’s a wildfire, a disease outbreak or environmental changes,” Nichols summarizes.

Pandemic and Disease Response Insights

Nichols was a leader in investigating and finding unique solutions for the livestock industry and specifically meat packing industry related to COVID-19.

“In April 2020, I got a call from my supervisor saying there are some meat, poultry packing plants that are going down because of labor shortages and illness,” she explains.

She selected and lead a team to figure out how to get the plants opened back up safely and to find unique solution to deal with the related animal welfare issues.

Summarizing the experiences, Nichols reports the estimated economic cost of COVID-19 is $14 trillion. Along with supply chain disruptions the industry experienced changes in consumer behavior, labor shortage and complex operations challenges. On a positive note, she says the industry did experience a lot of innovation and uptake of technology due to the pandemic, which resulted in innovative approaches to workplace safety and communication.

“We saw innovative strategies where if one person got sick, they looked around that worker and said, ‘OK, who do we need to monitor quickly for symptoms?’” she says.

Nichols also discussed the increase in salmonella outbreaks during the pandemic. She links the rise to the increase in backyard poultry ownership and the improper handling of backyard chickens.

“Many new chicken owners were unaware of disease transmission risks,” she explains.

Nichols also shared insights to H5N1 influenza and emphasized the complexity of tracking and preventing. She highlights the need for integrated, cross-species surveillance and communication strategies.

She also touched on emerging threats, including New World screwworm (NWS) . Her message emphasized the importance of prevention, control and preparedness.

She shares these five key strategies related to NWS:

Surveillance. Early dection through wound inspections and reporting in livestock.
Sterile Insect Technique (SIT). Ongoing release of serile male flies to prevent reproduction.
Biosecurity. Movement control of imported animals and monitoring at entry points.
Public Awareness. Education for doctors, ranchers, veterinarians and travelers.
Rapid Response Planning. Multi-agency coordination to contain outbreaks swiftly and deploy sterile flies.

Agricultural Literacy, Communication is Key

“Growing up in the middle of nowhere, I also came to understand that not everyone appreciates — or even understands — where their food comes from,” Nichols says.

She shared a 1993 study that revealed significant gaps in public knowledge about agriculture. She summarizes understanding food systems involves knowing:

Where food comes from.
How it’s produced.
Its impact on economy, environment and technology.

Throughout her lecture she shared the importance of transforming complex scientific concepts into engaging, accessible insights that resonate with students, farmers, ranchers and public health professionals alike.

“It doesn’t matter how much information we have if we don’t get it out to the people,” Nichols says.

She stresses the importance of agricultural communication specialists in translating scientific information and engaging audiences.

“Don’t leave the communications to the scientists,” she says.

Nichols emphasizes that agricultural literacy and effective communication are crucial for bridging knowledge gaps and building public understanding of food systems.

She shares this advice for agricultural advocates:

Bring agricultural perspective to discussions by speaking up and sharing lived experiences.
Challenge misconceptions with personal stories by focusing on storytelling rather than technical details.
Understand your audience and use relatable language and provide context.

Nichols stresses the importance of preparedness and collaboration. She explains the importance of local-level discussions and community preparedness, suggesting that some of the most effective emergency preparedness conversations happen “at the coffee house” or during casual community gatherings.

How Nebraska is Tackling the Critical Rural Veterinarian Shortage in a New, Unique Way

Thu, 02 Oct 2025 14:32:20 GMT

A critical shortage of food-animal veterinarians is unfolding across rural America. A 2023 Farm Journal Foundation study found more than 500 counties across the U.S. lack enough veterinarians to care for livestock. The pipeline of new graduates simply isn’t keeping up; only 3% to 4% of today’s veterinary students choose to practice food-animal medicine, compared to about 40% four decades ago.

Experts warn the shortage poses risks beyond farm gates. Veterinarians are a front-line defense for animal health, and without them, food production and U.S. food security could be at risk.

And even though USDA announced plans to address the shortage by announcing their own Rural Veterinary Action Plan in August , Nebraska was ahead of the curve, launching their own program last year.

Nebraska’s Homegrown Solution

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), in partnership with Gov. Jim Pillen and state leaders, is working to reverse that trend through the Nebraska Elite 11 Veterinary Program .

“Through the governor and a lot of our state leaders who recognize the need for production animal health DVMs out in rural Nebraska … they partnered with us to identify and develop a scholarship program for these students,” says Deb VanOverbeke, head of UNL’s department of animal science.

The program specifically targets Nebraska students who aspire to practice large-animal veterinary medicine in rural communities.

Scholarships That Start Freshman Year

Unlike most programs that support students late in their training, Elite 11 identifies and supports them as soon as they step on campus.

“These cohorts start as freshmen in college … They’ve identified that they want to go down the path of practicing veterinary medicine in rural Nebraska with production animals,” VanOverbeke explains.

Each year, up to 20 incoming animal science or veterinary science students are accepted into the program. During their first two years, they receive scholarships covering 50% of tuition. After that, 11 students and two alternates are selected for full tuition scholarships during their junior and senior years.

Those selected also earn automatic admission into UNL’s preprofessional veterinary medicine program, run in partnership with Iowa State University.

A Long-Term Commitment

Financial barriers are one of the biggest deterrents for veterinary students. By providing tuition support early and guaranteeing a pathway forward, UNL hopes to ease that pressure.

“It’s going to take us eight years to get these students to be practicing veterinarians in rural Nebraska,” VanOverbeke says. “But so much of the student burden is financial. This scholarship gives them a way to see a path forward.”

The program also includes a major incentive after graduation. Students who practice in a rural Nebraska community for at least eight years in food-animal medicine become eligible for 100% loan forgiveness.

Students Already Seeing the Impact

For students like Sydney Hutchinson of West Point, Neb., the scholarship program has already changed her trajectory.

“I always knew I was interested in doing something with an agricultural background,” Hutchinson says. “I’ve showed livestock, helped with routine stuff on the farm, like vaccinations, pulled a few calves. Those things got me interested in veterinary medicine.”

Originally, Hutchinson planned to attend Kansas State University, but when she learned about UNL’s program, she changed course.

“Nebraska is home to me. That’s where I’ve always seen myself coming back to,” she says. “Having this program show up at just the right time worked out great.”

Now in her second year at UNL, Hutchinson says she knows her calling isn’t in small animal clinics, but in rural, large-animal work.

“Finding large-animal veterinarians is a struggle in the state, especially those that want to come back and work in rural areas,” she says. “Addressing that problem first and foremost is great. It’s going to have a great long-term impact on Nebraska and its ag industry.”

Building a Future for Rural Veterinary Medicine

By investing early in students, providing financial support and creating a clear career pipeline, Nebraska hopes to strengthen its veterinary workforce for years to come.

For Hutchinson, the investment feels personal.

“To have them investing in the next generation — it’s huge,” she says.

If successful, the program could provide a model for other states facing the same critical shortage of rural food-animal veterinarians.

How Can We Improve Chuteside Diagnostics?

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:32:04 GMT

When a coughing steer steps into the chute, you might only have a few moments to decide if this animal is likely to recover with treatment or will further intervention be futile. The difference matters, not only for the animal’s welfare but for treatment costs, labor and antimicrobial stewardship.

Dr. Brad White of Kansas State University has been working on ways to make those chuteside decisions more accurate. His recent presentation at the 2025 American Association of Bovine Practitioners Annual Conference laid out new tools and technologies that could be incorporated into everyday feedlot medicine.

“[The] goal of chuteside testing is not just diagnostics, it’s which bucket can I put [the animal] in,” White says. “What if I could change the likelihood, or I had a diagnostic tool that would give me a better prognosis, and I had more chance of putting the ones that were going to live into this bucket and more chance of putting the ones that won’t live into the other bucket.”

White suggests thinking of chuteside decision-making using the Chuteside Ps:

Precision: How accurately can we distinguish specific disease syndromes that might display similar clinical signs?
Prescription: What treatment is appropriate based on the specific disease status?
Psychology: How do our own biases shape decisions under pressure?
Prioritization: Which cases should be segregated to provide additional therapeutic and management procedures to a smaller subset?
Prognosis: What is the animal’s likelihood of recovery?

Why this matters

Misclassification can have real economic consequences. In a study evaluating over 3,800 calves diagnosed with acute interstitial pneumonia (AIP) chuteside, 42% of treated animals finished the feeding phase and showed positive return, while 25% were culled and 33% died.

On average, estimated net returns were positive for cattle that finished with their cohort, even after multiple treatments ($98 for one treatment, $85 for two, and $46 for three). Animals that were culled after one to three treatments averaged negative $900 of net returns, meaning that in all cases, it would have been better to keep the calf then cull it.

While most veterinarians might consider AIP a death sentence diagnosis for cattle, this work demonstrates that is not always the case.

Clinician bias cannot be ignored when considering diagnosis. Under pressure, veterinarians and feedlot crews might over-diagnose or lean on familiar categories.

For example, AIP is most frequently diagnosed at 80 to 140 days on feed; however, necropsy evaluations have shown a more even distribution of cases throughout the feeding phase.

Chuteside technologies might be useful to incorporate in an effort to avoid inherent human biases.

Chuteside Tools

There are several tools under investigation that could be useful for chuteside antemortem cattle assessment. Three that have shown some promise are:

Cardiac troponin I: Elevated levels have been shown to be highly specific for poor outcomes in bovine respiratory disease cases, though sensitivity is limited. Animals testing positive have a much lower likelihood of successful recovery.

Mucous membrane assessment: Animals with abnormal mucous membranes have been found less likely to finish. However, this testing had low sensitivity and high specificity.

Targeted thoracic ultrasound: Can be used to reveal interstitial changes that are not apparent on a physical exam, helping differentiate acute from chronic respiratory conditions.

Along with these, predictive models using multiple diagnostic inputs have shown promise for determining case outcomes. However, these are hard to use quickly chuteside.

“There’s no single metric that’s going to get us there,” White advises. “Our thought process is that we’re likely going to have to combine [metrics]. Part of the trick is figuring out which places to apply them.”

Practical Challenges

Integrating new diagnostics is not without hurdles. Equipment cost, chuteside practicality and training all matter. Time pressures in the chute are real, and not every feedlot crew is ready to adopt ultrasound or biochemical assays into their routine.

Field validation is another concern. Tools that work in controlled research settings might not always translate seamlessly to the dusty, high-pressure environment of a feedlot. Veterinarians must balance the potential gains with the realities of implementation.

Looking Ahead

White hopes that each veterinarian and producer asks themselves these important questions:

“How can I be more precise with these cases, and how can I use prognosis to prioritize them based on my management decisions? We’ve got many of the same classes of treatments and therapies that we’ve had for years; how can we make sure that we’re using them at the right place and the right time?”

Healthy Minds, Healthy Farms: Putting People First During National Farm Safety and Health Week

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 18:58:33 GMT

Farm Health and Safety Week is a chance to focus on something agriculture often overlooks: the health of the people who make it all possible. Veterinarians and producers alike pour their energy into the care of livestock, but the demands of the job can take a toll on both body and mind. Protecting your health is not selfish, it’s the foundation for sustaining your animals, your business and your community.

The challenges of farming and veterinary work are not only physical. Stress, financial pressure, unpredictable weather, disease outbreaks and tough animal welfare decisions can all weigh heavily on the minds of both veterinarians and producers. Mental health is inseparable from physical health; stress increases fatigue, reduces immunity and makes injuries more likely.

Andi Davison, licensed veterinary technician and positive change agent with Flourish Veterinary Consulting, recognizes the importance of allowing yourself to focus on your own mental health

“We are very good at focusing on our patients and our clients and our communities and our farms and our agriculture because it matters, and it all depends on the veterinary professionals and producers that are out there in the field doing the things,” Davison says. “It’s really easy to forget how valuable we are as professionals to that equation. I really believe that starting with a mindset that gives us permission to see ourselves as a valuable contributor is critical.”

Veterinarian Isolation

One of the biggest mental challenges facing bovine veterinarians on a daily basis is isolation. Often you’re traveling alone from farm to farm without a co-worker to share the time with. It’s worth considering and checking in with yourself about what makes you feel best. Davison recommends using the drive between farms to employ some strategies for a mental reset. These strategies can differ based on your personality.

For an introvert, this could include inward reflection on your last visit, listening to a podcast, pulling over to meditate or jamming out to your favorite album; for an extrovert, this could include calling someone to chat.

“When you get to the next farm, you set that intention of: ‘Okay, I worked through that, I reflected on my first stop. I took that space in between, and now I’m going to show up at my next stop in a way that I want to,’” Davison suggests. “The great thing about it is that you can do it in between stops, in between calls, in between farms; fit it in where it works best for you as an individual.”

Let’s Talk About It

Breaking the stigma around mental health is essential. Open conversations help normalize seeking help, whether through a professional counselor, a trusted peer, or a community support group. Small steps also make a difference: staying connected socially, setting aside even short periods of time for rest or hobbies and recognizing when stress is becoming overwhelming.

Importantly, both veterinarians and producers are in a position to check in on each other. A simple question like “how are you holding up” can open the door to vital conversations.

“Something that allows food medicine to stand out a little bit from the other facets of veterinary medicine is that quite often, the producer and the veterinarian are on the same page because their goals are very similar,” Davison says. “Whether that relationship involves discussing mental health, I bet you it does in some and it doesn’t in others. But I would encourage that conversation because the goals are similar. They’re out there doing it day in and day out, just like the veterinarian is. I would imagine that is a critical conversation to be had.”

Making mental health a part of everyday farm and clinic conversations can go a long way.

A Culture of Health in Agriculture

It’s important to recognize that there are resources out there, there are communities you can join, and there are connections that can be made. Interaction with others can go a long way to improving your mental health.

Healthy people build healthy farms. By allowing yourself to care for your mental well-being, veterinarians and producers can create a more sustainable future for themselves and their communities. National Farm Safety and Health Week is not only a reminder of the risks of agricultural work, but also an opportunity to commit to better habits, stronger support systems, and a shared responsibility for health.

Your Next Read: Bulls, Gates and Risks: A Veterinarian’s Guide to Farm Safety

Generic vs. Pioneer Drugs for Cattle: Should You Care?

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:58:13 GMT

Medication use is an essential part of maintaining health, productivity and welfare in dairy and beef cattle. From treating mastitis on a dairy to managing respiratory disease in a feedlot, veterinarians and producers rely on a range of pharmaceuticals to keep herds healthy. However, with many drugs available in both pioneer and generic forms, the question arises: Is there a meaningful difference between the two?

For veterinarians and producers, the decision involves more than just the label. Understanding the approval process, economics and practical considerations behind generic and pioneer drugs can help guide responsible choices that support animal health, food safety and economic sustainability.

What are Pioneer and Generic drugs?

Pioneer drugs are the original products developed by a pharmaceutical company that have an approved new animal drug application (NADA). They are protected by patents, which give the company exclusive marketing rights for a period of time. This exclusivity allowed the manufacturer to recoup the significant investment made in research, development and regulatory approval.

Generic drugs enter the market once those patents expire and have an approved abbreviated NADA (ANADA). A generic contains the same active ingredient, in the same dosage form and strength, and is administered through the same route as its brand name counterpart. In other words, a generic drug must deliver the same therapeutic effect as the brand name drug.

The key differences often lie in the inactive ingredients, such as stabilizers, preservatives or carriers, that can vary between products. These differences generally do not affect stability or efficacy, but may influence characteristics such as palatability or ease of administration.

Approval and Regulatory Oversight

Both pioneer and generic veterinary drugs are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. However, the approval pathways differ:

Pioneer drug approval requires a company to submit an NADA. This includes extensive studies to prove the product’s safety for the target species, its effectiveness against the labeled condition, tolerance in the animal, food safety data (residue studies for milk and meat) and environmental impact. These studies often involve large clinical trials and can take years to complete.
Generic approval follows the ANADA process. Instead of repeating all of the brand name drug’s trials, the generic manufacturer must prove bioequivalence — that the drug behaves the same way in the animal’s body as the original product. Generics must also demonstrate consistent manufacturing practices and establish withdrawal times for milk and meat.

The result is that generics are held to rigorous standards of safety and efficacy. They are not weaker or inferior, they simply follow a more streamlined approval process as the groundwork has already been laid by the pioneer product.

Economics

One of the most notable differences between pioneer and generic drugs is cost. For producers, generic options can significantly reduce the cost of herd-level treatment, which is an important factor when treating dozens or hundreds of animals. For veterinarians, cost can influence prescribing practices and client satisfaction. Offering effective but more affordable treatment options might improve compliance and strengthen the veterinarian-producer relationship. In the long term, the availability of generics supports more sustainable herd health programs, particularly for common or recurring conditions.

Clinical and Practical Considerations

Does it work? vs. Did it work here?

When speaking on generic drugs, one of the key distinctions Dr. Nora Schrag, from Kansas State University, pointed out was the difference between whether a drug works and whether a drug worked in a specific production environment.

“‘Does the thing in the bottle work’ is a fundamentally very different question than ‘did it work,’ Schrag says. “‘Did it work’ includes the stuff in the bottle, but it also includes the people that are getting the stuff in the bottle into the critter, it includes the critters, it includes the weather, it includes everything else.”

Outcomes are influenced not just by the drug but also by management. Measuring whether a drug worked in a particular production setting requires keeping good records, monitoring success rates and comparing farm outcomes to peer benchmarks.

While generics and pioneer drugs are equivalent in active ingredient and expected efficacy, a few practical points deserve attention:

Perception: Some producers might be skeptical, perceiving pioneer products as more trustworthy. Veterinarians play a critical role in reassuring clients with evidence-based guidance.
Formulation differences: Rarely, a difference in inactive ingredients might influence animal tolerance or ease of use.
Compliance and stewardship: Regardless of whether pioneer or generic, observing label directions, withdrawal periods and judicious antimicrobial use principles remains essential.

Guidance for Decision-Making

The choice of what drug to use should be a collaborative effort between veterinarians and producers.

Veterinarians should evaluate both clinical needs and economic considerations. Recommending a generic is often appropriate, but being prepared to explain the science behind equivalency helps build producer confidence.
Producers should recognize withdrawal times and responsible use requirements apply equally to both drug types. Partnering with veterinarians ensures choices align with herd health goals and regulatory compliance.
Both parties must consider not only cost, but also judicious antimicrobial use, animal welfare and food safety when selecting products.

Both brand name and pioneer drugs are indispensable tools for managing cattle health. FDA’s rigorous approval process ensures generics are just as safe and effective as their pioneer counterparts. Generics offer producers significant cost savings that support sustainable operations. Working with their clients, veterinarians can help guide drug choices to ensure effective treatment while promoting stewardship and trust.

In the end, the decision is not about brand loyalty but using evidence-based judgment to balance animal health, food safety and economics. Together, these values benefit both the beef and dairy industry.

Castration in Beef Production: Timing, Technique and Welfare

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:23:12 GMT

Castration is one of the most common surgical procedures in beef production, yet the timing and method used varies across producers. While some producers delay the procedure in hopes of capturing additional growth, early castration may best balance calf welfare, health and downstream performance.

Veterinarians play a critical role in guiding producers through these decisions, not only by offering technical expertise but also by advising on the economic and management benefits.

The justification for castration has been well established. From a behavioral standpoint, bulls are more prone to fighting, mounting and injuring pen mates. These behaviors contribute to stress, lameness and carcass bruising, all of which translate into economic loss. Castration also improves carcass quality; steers typically produce more tender beef and are less likely to result in dark cutters at harvest.

Properly castrated steers bring a premium at market compared to intact bull calves. According to Kansas State veterinarian Brad White, “Price discounts for uncastrated bulls could range from 3% to 15% depending on weight and age.”

Castration Timing

One of the most frequent questions producers pose is when calves should be castrated. According to Dr. Dan Thompson of Production Animal Consultation, the short answer is: the earlier, the better.

Research consistently demonstrates that castrating in the first week of life results in less stress, fewer complications and no long-term performance penalties. A review from the University of Florida concluded that calves castrated within the first week showed no disadvantage in weaning weight compared to those castrated at weaning, effectively debunking the notion that leaving bulls intact until weaning captures a growth advantage. Physiologically, this makes sense: Testosterone secretion at levels that influence muscle growth does not occur until puberty, or 7 to10 months of age.

Delaying castration until weaning or feedlot arrival significantly increases the risk of morbidity and mortality. In a recent analysis , Paul Beck and colleagues found that bulls were 1.16 times more likely to have chronic morbidity and 2.27 times more likely to have bovine respiratory disease mortality than steers.

On an episode of DocTalk , Thompson reinforced this point, noting that morbidity may increase by 150% to 200% when calves are castrated upon feedlot arrival. The intact bulls included in the analysis also displayed reduced average daily gain during the receiving period compared to their steer counterparts, and no compensatory gain on pasture, undermining any perceived advantage of delaying castration.

Methods and their Applications

The choice of castration technique should be guided by calf age, weight and producer resources. For calves under 250 lb., elastic band castration using a small elastrator is straightforward and effective. The procedure is bloodless at the time of application, simple to perform, and generally well tolerated. For larger calves, specialized large-animal banders, such as the Callicrate Bander, can be employed.

Regardless of size, banding carries the risk of tetanus. Clostridium tetani, the bacterial cause of tetanus, can be found in the soil. Veterinarians should be aware of the risk potential in their area of service and recommend vaccination accordingly.

Surgical castration can be used for immediate testicular removal, and is used more in larger calves. For very young calves, a simple scrotal incision and manual extraction of the testicles can be used. In older calves, hemorrhage becomes a more significant concern. Instruments, such as emasculators or the Henderson tool, which twist the spermatic cord to form a self-ligature, have been developed to reduce bleeding risk. These tools give veterinarians and producers more control in preventing complications, though they may require specific skills and follow-up management.

Pain Management

Regardless of method or age, castration is painful. Historically, pain control in livestock procedures was rarely employed, but growing consumer awareness and concern for animal welfare is changing expectations. Moreover, pain mitigation improves calf comfort and may support better post-procedural recovery. Local anesthesia with lidocaine is effective in reducing acute pain during surgical castration. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can further reduce post-procedural pain and inflammation.

Innovations such as Solvet, a lidocaine-impregnated elastrator band, offer promising new approaches for pain management with castration. These bands provide local anesthesia over the course of castration (14 to 28 days), reducing pain behaviors and allowing calves to resume normal activity more quickly. Such tools give veterinarians practical solutions to recommend to producers who are increasingly concerned about welfare and public perception.

Complications and Mitigation

All castration techniques are not without risk. The most common complications of castration are:

Hemorrhage — Particularly with surgical methods. Packing the scrotum with gauze or using a band to compress the wound can reduce bleeding.
Tetanus — Especially concerning after banding. Proper vaccination is key for prevention.
Fly strike — Preventable with seasonal planning, fly tags and repellents.
Incomplete castration — Typically the result of improper band placement. Can be minimized by careful technique and post-procedure monitoring.

Castration should be considered in terms of both animal welfare and economic return. Simply, castrating calves early is better for the calf, better for performance and better for the bottom line. Research confirms that delaying castration does not improve weaning weights, but it does increase health risks and compromise performance in the feedlot.

With the addition of practical pain management options and sound vaccination protocols, veterinarians can help producers implement castration programs that support both productivity and public trust. Castration is not simply a routine procedure, it is a management decision that directly impacts animal health, producer economics, and consumer confidence in beef production.

First Generic Bovine Respiratory Disease Treatment Approved by the FDA

Tue, 02 Sep 2025 16:02:47 GMT

Updated October 8, 2025

Bimedia US has now launched Gamrozyne, an FDA approved antibiotic (gamithromycin) injectable solution for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) caused by Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni and Mycoplasma bovis in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle. Additionally, Gamrozyne has been approved to help control respiratory disease in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle at high risk of developing BRD associated with M. haemolytica and P. multocida.

This marks the first FDA-approved generic version of Zactran (gamithromycin; Boehringer Ingelheim) injectable solution and has been determined to be bioequivalent.

Gamithromycin has been shown to reach target lung tissue within 30 minutes and delivers 10 days of treatment with a single subcutaneous injection.

How To Recognize BRD

BRD is the most common and costly respiratory disease affecting the North American beef cattle industry. Delayed diagnosis and treatment increases the risk of secondary bacterial infections and can lead to severe illness and death. Clinical signs of BRD in cattle depend on the age of the animal, the causative organism(s) and the stage of the disease. However, the general clinical signs are:

Fever (over 40°C/104°F)
Labored breathing
Nasal and/or ocular discharge
Depression and/or dullness
Lack of appetite
Rapid, shallow breathing
Coughing
Salivation

Of these symptoms, fever in cattle is most commonly attributed to BRD and can be one of the earliest signs of disease. Further, the type of coughing can be indicative of the severity of the infection. In early cases, the lungs and airways are painful, so the animal will try to clear the airway with tentative, soft coughing. Later stage infection is characterized by more prominent coughing, and at this point, treatment is difficult.

BRD Prevention

To prevent BRD in cow-calf operations, close collaboration between the veterinarian and the producer is key. Developing a prevention-based herd-health program can improve the reproductive performance of the cow herd and help prevent illness in pre-weaned calves. This program should include:

A vaccination program tailored to the risk factors of your herd
Adequate herd nutrition (including assuring passive transfer with colostrum intake)
Consistent cattle handling to reduce stress
Testing for and removing cattle persistently infected with BRD

Your Next Read: Risk Factors Associated with BRD in Preweaned Calves

How Arizona Is Preparing the Public To Scout for New World Screwworm Threat

Thu, 07 Aug 2025 13:12:08 GMT

With its high temperatures and few winter freezes, Arizona is ripe territory for infestation from New World screwworm (NWS).

Ryan Wolker, state veterinarian with the Arizona Department of Agriculture, says he thinks the threat to his state from NWS is significant.

“It is definitely a concern,” he says. “The New World screwworm detections in Mexico have surpassed 3,000 premises and have come within approximately 370 miles south of the southernmost point of Texas, but obviously that can change quite rapidly, especially with the animal movement within the country of Mexico itself.”

Wolker has concerns about the impact NWS could have on Arizona’s already-stressed cattle ranchers.

“There was a limited outbreak of NWS in Texas in the 1970s, and USDA conducted a study of that economic impact in 2016,” he says. “Even without adjustment for increased inventories of animals since that time, because obviously, herd sizes are larger, feedlots are bigger, etc, the economic impact of that same outbreak in Texas now, only counting for inflation, would be looking at a cost to producers and lost revenue in the neighborhood around $1.4 billion.”

At a recent Trust In Beef Sustainable Ranchers Tour event in Willcox, Ariz., Wolker and the Arizona Livestock Incident Response Team (ALIRT) began an initiative to get ahead of the potential economic damage.

The Arizona Livestock Incident Response Team (ALIRT) gathered at YY Ranch during a recent Trust In Beef Sustainable Ranchers Tour event to hone tactical skills needed for a possible New World screwworm response in the state.

(Photo courtesy of Dr. Betsy Greene, University of Arizona extension specialist )

After gathering the team to practice on-the-ground incident response at YY Ranch, Wolker and Betsy Greene, extension specialist with the University of Arizona, unveiled the first of the state’s saddlebag scouting kits that are available to ranchers.

The kit includes:

Specimen collection vials with tweezers.
Specimen baggies with cotton balls for safe transport.
Collection and mail instructions.

“The whole point is, we can get and find things faster,” Greene says. “If someone sees it, gets a sample, then we can deal with it.”

Greene and Wolker urge ranchers to begin scouting now in their herds, looking at open wounds for any signs of infestation. Hunters should scout not only their harvests but any carcass they encounter during hunts.

In addition to specimen collection, Wolker stresses the importance of gathering additional data as well.

“Take some pictures for documentation purposes,” he says. “If you’re proficient with Google Maps, drop a pin to grab those GPS coordinates for us.”

The Arizona Livestock Incident Response Team (ALIRT) is a cross-functional team that aims to improve the diagnosis and response to unexplained livestock deaths in the state by providing resources and expertise from the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, Arizona Department of Agriculture, USDA and University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.

(Photo courtesy of Dr. Betsy Greene, University of Arizona extension specialist)

NWS scouting kits are available to ranchers through ALIRT . The team has issued a resource with additional scouting and specimen collection tips .

Additional resources can be found through your local Extension office, large animal or equine veterinarian or through the Arizona Department of Agriculture Animal Services Division.

AgriTalk Host Chip Flory recently visited with Wolker about NWS. You can hear the complete discussion here:

Visit trustinbeef.com for information about upcoming stops on the 2025 Sustainable Ranchers Tour and make your plans to attend.

Your next read: Stay up-to-date on NWS with Drovers coverage.

What Every Producer Should Know About Judicious Antibiotic Use

Fri, 01 Aug 2025 11:01:55 GMT

Judicious use of antibiotics is tremendously important for the future of beef and dairy production.

“If we’re going to preserve the effectiveness of the limited number of antimicrobials that we have in the cattle industry, using them appropriately to minimize the development of antimicrobial resistance is vital,” says Pat Gorden, DVM, PhD, professor at Iowa State University.

Utilizing antibiotics responsibly also supports the long-term success of cattle operations, and helps reinforce consumer trust in our industry.

“Keeping cattle healthy is always the goal,” states Nathan Meyer, DVM, PhD, Boehringer Ingelheim. “When antibiotics are used judiciously, it improves the lives of cattle, producers and consumers.”

Using antibiotics judiciously requires implementing these fundamental herd health practices on your operation:

1. Maintain a veterinarian-client-patient relationship

The foundation of responsible antibiotic use begins with establishing and maintaining a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR), which is required to access prescription antibiotics.

With a VCPR, your veterinarian can be a true partner in supporting your herd’s health. It can help them gain a better understanding of your herd and be more aligned with your operation’s goals.

“Before a disease occurs, your veterinarian can help develop protocols for receiving cattle, or moving cattle through an operation that can minimize the stress and the risk of disease,” Gorden says.

Then, when treatment is needed, your veterinarian can provide more timely and accurate treatment advice.

“Your veterinarian can help identify the correct animals that need treatment, and recommend when to implement metaphylaxis protocols,” Meyer explains.

A strong VCPR allows you to work with your veterinarian to build more effective protocols, preventing problems before they start, and ensuring long-term success for your herd.

2. Maximize antibiotic efficacy

A key strategy to judicious antibiotic use is accurately identifying which cattle need treatment.

“Making sure we identify sick cattle quickly and treat them soon after detecting signs of illness is very important,” Meyer says.

Tools like digital sensors, stethoscopes and rectal thermometers can help improve the odds of finding sick animals. However, it still ultimately comes down to the human eye to properly identify illness, so it’s important that anyone working with the animals is trained to recognize the signs early.

Once an animal has been identified for treatment, the right antibiotic should be selected.

“For instance, if you’re treating bovine respiratory disease [BRD], a broad-spectrum antibiotic might be advised,” shares Meyer. “The macrolide class of antimicrobials is broad-spectrum, meaning they treat the four primary BRD pathogens. So, choosing the correct antibiotic is crucial, based on what you’re observing for clinical illness.”

Following the treatment protocols and label recommendations is also a must. This includes withdrawal periods, dosage and post-treatment intervals.

“Where we could improve is accurately knowing the weight of cattle, so we deliver the right dosage,” Gorden says.

When determining the correct dosage, try to weigh cattle individually to get an accurate weight, or, at a minimum, use a weight tape.

Once cattle have been treated, keep thorough records on each individual animal to better adhere to withdrawal periods and know what to do if additional treatment is required.

“Frequently monitor records to see what’s changing,” Gorden says. “If you’re typically seeing a certain prevalence of a disease, and it suddenly increases, that’s an indication that something changed. Unless somebody’s looking at those records on a regular basis, an issue may not be found until it’s too late.”

3. Management matters

Strong management practices are imperative to preventing disease and reducing the need for antibiotics. Implementing tactics such as biosecurity, low-stress handling, limiting overcrowding, housing in well-ventilated buildings and providing a clean environment are just a few ways to help minimize stress and disease risk.

“Cover the basics, like trying to minimize stress by purchasing high-health cattle if they’re on the beef side,” Gorden says. “Taking care of nutrition on the dairy cattle side is hugely important to grow those animals at a faster rate, but at the same time, feed the immune system so it’s ready to help fight off any infections that may come.”

Vaccinations are another way to prepare cattle for a battle with disease and reduce the need for antibiotics.

“The cornerstone to any herd health plan is prevention,” Meyer stresses. “We want to build immunity through vaccination to have a good herd health status. Whenever cattle are challenged, they normally mount a strong immune response. The key is prevention, so vaccination must precede the challenge to have maximum effect.”

Work with your veterinarian to create protocols that help optimize the health of your herd and reduce the need for antibiotics. Visit CattleFirst.com for more details on how to support your herd’s health.

Your Next Read: Key Nutrition Strategies for a Successful Weaning

Success From The Start: Calf Health Starts Before Birth

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:11:34 GMT

If a calf struggles during its first 60 days of life, it’s going to carry that through all phases of production. Starting a calf, whether in a traditional beef or beef-on-dairy scenario, the right way is paramount to the lifetime health of that animal.

This is the message stressed by Dr. Taylor Engle, Four Star Veterinary Services, during episode eight of “ The Future of Beef Show ” podcast. He says success starts before a calf is born.

“There are a lot of really good genetics in the beef industry we can use. However, if you put that calf in an environment to fail, genetics does not play a factor,” he says. “We have to do everything right from an environmental piece to maximize the genetic potential.”

Check out the podcast to learn more about these five key messages discussed by Engle and the podcast’s hosts:

Environment matters more than genetics. Engle emphasizes if you put a calf in an environment to fail, genetics won’t save it. Management and early life conditions are critical to an animal’s success.
Calf health starts before birth. Proper care of the cow before calving, quality colostrum and a clean birthing environment are crucial for a calf’s lifetime health.

Engle encourages producers to think about the cow’s condition before, during and after breeding.

“Everyone gets really fired up — and rightfully so — about colostrum. Not all colostrum is created equal,” he says. “It’s what we are doing to set that cow up to have the best colostrum for that calf. Whether it’s beef-on-dairy or native, the right vaccines for the right diseases at the right time matters.”
Communication is key across the production chain. Sharing information about calf health, vaccination history and management practices between different stages of production can significantly improve overall animal performance.

Engle encourages producers to record vaccination and treatment information and then share it. Communicating with the feedyard is important to help the feeder decide on how to treat cattle.
Don’t be quick to treat — understand the root cause. Instead of immediately administering antibiotics, veterinarians should first investigate the underlying management or environmental issues causing health problems.

“We were trained to think it’s a disease, and more often times than not, there is a disease present. But there’s been something along the process where we have stressed that animal and caused disease,” he explains. “We’re always looking at it from an environmental standpoint and a management standpoint — the calf isn’t the culprit. What’s going on? Why did that calf break with respiratory disease? They don’t spontaneously get sick. Something happened. Was it a weather, feed or stressful event?”

He adds management strategies and mentality can be keys to determining the cause of a sickness.

“It’s a hard thing — whether you’re a nutritionist or vet — to have that hard conversation with a producer, be upfront with them and say, ‘It’s something we’ve done,’” he says. “A lot of times, there’s management practices that messed up along the way, and the result is a disease.”

In his practice, he works with the producer to help them understand and recognize the management strategies to improve the outcomes.

“In the beef industry, a lot of the mentality is, ‘We’ve never done it this way,’” he says.
“In comparison, in the poultry and pig industries, producers will say, ‘If it increases my production, I’ll do it.’ They have the mentality of being willing to give something a try to see if it increases health.”

Engle adds, “I always tell producers if you want A results, you got to give A effort,” he explains. “You can’t have a C -plus effort and expect A results.”
Stress management is more important than treatment protocols. Focus on reducing stress and creating optimal conditions for calves, rather than relying solely on medical interventions.

“The calves don’t lie,” Engle says.

He emphasizes the importance of careful observation, advising producers to “read calves every day” and make real-time adjustments.

Beef-on-Dairy Calf Health
Engle also has extensive experience with beef-on-dairy calf management and production and discussed how those animals compare to traditional beef calves, highlighting how multiple touch points and movements bring beef-on-dairy calves unique challenges — including different feeding systems and varied vaccine and management protocols at each location.

As a positive, he says, “In the beef-on-dairy space, we have all the data points, or we have the opportunity to collect all the data points. Then you can start making decisions.”

With this complex — but data-rich — production model, there is significant potential for improving calf health and performance.

Engle challenges producers to think holistically about animal health, management and production.

“It’s not the animal that’s usually causing the problems,” he says in summary. “It’s usually producer’s management or oversight. As farms have gotten bigger, the skill gap as we go higher actually closes. Everybody who has 10,000-head of cattle on feed, or more, probably knows a lot about feeding cattle. But what are you going to do for a competitive advantage that the next feedyard isn’t? I think a lot of that’s looking internally at your management strategies and your consulting team. It’s a team effort to get to where you want to be. Set those goals and look at what you need to do better to be where you want to be in the next five to 10 years.”

Consumer Trust: A Veterinarian’s Role

Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:27:12 GMT

This article was written by David Friedlander, the Senior Director of Market Research for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

With information so readily available at one’s fingertips, ensuring a trusted source of information from the cattle industry is critical. Animal caretakers may field questions on how animals are raised from many interested groups. Who better to provide unbiased information related to animals than the voice of a veterinarian?

Through the first three months of 2025, fresh meat sales reached an all-time high compared to year ago levels¹. Protein is top of mind as it relates to health and wellness and consumers are looking for help navigating the crowded informational marketplace.

By the end of 2025, over 325 million people are projected to have internet access in the United States² with the majority using a mobile device or smartphone to access it³. News and information are now at the consumers’ fingertips. For a host of reasons, consumer trust among mass media outlets is at an all-time low⁴.

From a veterinarian or farmer/rancher perspective, how does one share information related to production practices? Who is the trusted source of truth among consumers?

Referencing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Associations’ (NCBA) Consumer Beef Tracker, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, both a veterinarian and farmer/rancher rise to the top, above all other sources⁵. In fact, more than 60% of consumers note both a veterinarian and farmer/rancher as the source of truth followed by more than 50% consumers looking to government agencies, specifically, USDA, FDA and CDC.

(Consumer Beef Tracker, NCBA)

When asking respondents about perceptions specifically related to beef, 90% of respondents had a positive or neutral response. Taking this one step further, when asking respondents about the production perception of beef, 80% had a positive or neutral response⁵.

Although overall perceptions related to beef are positive, when asking respondents about their knowledge specifically related to how cattle are raised and grown for food, data show slightly more than 25% of respondents noted either “knowledgeable’ or “very knowledgeable”⁵about how cattle are raised and grown for food.

However, when consumers make purchases, 70% claim they have some level of consideration of how food was raised and grown for food. When narrowing down to concerns related to how cattle are raised for food, less than 35% of respondents have a specific concern, with animal welfare rising to the top⁵.

Given the challenging media landscape and lack of trust among consumers, NCBA looked to producers and a veterinarian to help raise overall perception related to how cattle are raised for food.

(Consumer Beef Tracker, NCBA)

Given the challenging media landscape and lack of trust among consumers, NCBA looked to producers and a veterinarian to help raise overall perception related to how cattle are raised for food. Capturing a day in the life of local producers and a veterinarian, NCBA shared the level of care, overall well-being and hard work that goes into raising cattle.

When surveying consumers, both before and after seeing the featured video, the positive response grew from just over 30% to nearly 75% among respondents. Perhaps even more encouraging, negative perception decreased from nearly 30% to just 5% after seeing the featured video ⁶.

Integrating industry education resources such as those in the Beef Checkoff-funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and associated programs is one way that veterinarians can continue to be this trusted voice. Elevating cattle care through that partnership with the producer impacts animal health, product quality, and consumer confidence . Considering the consumer aspect of raising cattle is one area where veterinarians may have not previously contributed, though it is apparent that their influence goes beyond animal health.

In a marketplace filled with competing messages and general mistrust among consumers, it is very encouraging to see high levels of trust by consumers, specifically, in those individuals that have one-to-one experience with the animals, namely the veterinarian and the farmer/rancher to help share out the broader message of animal care.

There is still work to be done from a consumer perspective but having a trusted leader to share the message is a great place to start. For more consumer insights and Beef Checkoff-funded research, visit https://www.beefresearch.org/ .

References
¹Circana
² Statista, 2025 projections based on actuals through 2023
³DataReportal: GWI; Meltwater; We Are Social
⁴Gallup 1927 - 2024
⁵NCBA Consumer Beef Tracker, January – December 2024
⁶NCBA: Raised and grown asset testing, October 2023