Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Health & Nutrition
bull down
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lucky_P" data-source="post: 1334581" data-attributes="member: 12607"><p>I'd have him tested. 3.5 yrs is a bit younger than we usually see cattle with terminal lymphosarcoma. Most are 5+... but he's not far off from that. This bull may have a problem other than BLV-induced lymphosarcoma. From what you've described... possibilities to consider, IMO, are injury, tumor, spinal abscess... in no particular order. </p><p></p><p>Of the cattle infected with BLV, only 5-10% will go on to develop lymphosarcoma or leukemia during their lifetime. Most average producers are unlikely to have more than a case or two per year... if that frequently. </p><p>Test and cull?... I'd have had virtually no herd left. I've not had the guts to re-bleed and test now... cow numbers here are double what they were in 2006-7... I've had a couple of cows that were born after the change in needle/ob sleeve management that developed lymphosarcoma at about 5 years of age... both out of known BLV-positive cows... so they may have been infected in utero, by way of leukocytes in milk, or just in normal grooming/interaction with dam and other cattle in the herd. </p><p></p><p>At present, there's no discrimination against BLV-positive cattle, for the most part. A few folks are beginning to pay attention, but I'd say it'd be difficult to source known test-negative cattle in large numbers without doing a lot of testing and cherry-picking. </p><p>No conclusive proof that BLV poses any health issues for humans, but there have been some recent findings that may call that into question.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lucky_P, post: 1334581, member: 12607"] I'd have him tested. 3.5 yrs is a bit younger than we usually see cattle with terminal lymphosarcoma. Most are 5+... but he's not far off from that. This bull may have a problem other than BLV-induced lymphosarcoma. From what you've described... possibilities to consider, IMO, are injury, tumor, spinal abscess... in no particular order. Of the cattle infected with BLV, only 5-10% will go on to develop lymphosarcoma or leukemia during their lifetime. Most average producers are unlikely to have more than a case or two per year... if that frequently. Test and cull?... I'd have had virtually no herd left. I've not had the guts to re-bleed and test now... cow numbers here are double what they were in 2006-7... I've had a couple of cows that were born after the change in needle/ob sleeve management that developed lymphosarcoma at about 5 years of age... both out of known BLV-positive cows... so they may have been infected in utero, by way of leukocytes in milk, or just in normal grooming/interaction with dam and other cattle in the herd. At present, there's no discrimination against BLV-positive cattle, for the most part. A few folks are beginning to pay attention, but I'd say it'd be difficult to source known test-negative cattle in large numbers without doing a lot of testing and cherry-picking. No conclusive proof that BLV poses any health issues for humans, but there have been some recent findings that may call that into question. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Health & Nutrition
bull down
Top