Extreme temp = sick calves

[Bright Raven]

http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/control-of-bovine-virus-diarrhoea-(bvd).aspx

I believe you are mistaken about a cow having complete recovery. They may outwardly get better but will still shed the virus their entire life and may produce PI calves. If vaccinated annually with a MLV they will not produce any more PI calves

And doesn't the same hold true for a killed vaccines like Triangle 10 HB?

Not directed a me. But yes. Killed vaccines are also effective. The efficacy might be better with the live.

 

[Silver]

Interesting reading. It's not a black and white issue.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_modifiedlive_vs_killed

 

[True Grit Farms]

Interesting reading. It's not a black and white issue.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_modifiedlive_vs_killed

Disclaimer, I'm not able to back up this at the present time. But treating your retained heifers with a MLV before breeding, and following up with a killed vaccine booster, will give you a 5% increase in effectiveness. There's a lot of research going on at UGA for different things in the cattle business. Retaining ownership and marketing through UGA is starting to pay off for us in the southeast.

 

[gcreekrch]

http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/control-of-bovine-virus-diarrhoea-(bvd).aspx

I believe you are mistaken about a cow having complete recovery. They may outwardly get better but will still shed the virus their entire life and may produce PI calves. If vaccinated annually with a MLV they will not produce any more PI calves

And doesn't the same hold true for a killed vaccines like Triangle 10 HB?

I have discussed this many times with several vets and drug salesman. Apparently not.

We use a killed on purchased, bred cows mainly to cover the respiratory problems they may encounter. As soon as they are calved they go to the live vaccine.

 

[gcreekrch]

Interesting reading. It's not a black and white issue.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_modifiedlive_vs_killed

Thanks Silver. Good to both. I will guarentee that drug companies will never undersell one from the other. They make a profit from both.

I'm happy to get good coverage for once a year vaccination at a cheaper per head cost. Except for the first year, they get 3 shots during that time.

Don't forget the bulls either.......

 

[Bright Raven]

Interesting reading. It's not a black and white issue.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_modifiedlive_vs_killed

Studies exist that conclude that killed or attenuated virud vaccines were as effective as live preparations

 

[gcreekrch]

Interesting reading. It's not a black and white issue.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_modifiedlive_vs_killed

Studies exist that conclude that killed or attenuated virud vaccines were as effective as live preparations

Kind of off subject but are the killed popular because so many calve year round and live vaccines are deadly to naive, pregnant herds?

Off to see if I can't talk some bulls into coming home.

 

[Bright Raven]

Interesting reading. It's not a black and white issue.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_modifiedlive_vs_killed

Studies exist that conclude that killed or attenuated virud vaccines were as effective as live preparations

Kind of off subject but are the killed popular because so many calve year round and live vaccines are deadly to naive, pregnant herds?

Off to see if I can't talk some bulls into coming home.

Let's define this. First, this discussion is about modified live virus vaccines versus bacterins. Second, the subject is MLV Vaccines for fetal protection versus scours, i.e., Coronavirus or rotavirus.

The killed fetal protection viral vaccines are popular because they are easy to administer without the risk of causing abortions.

However, if you read the instructions carefully and keep good records, the MLV Vaccines can be used safely.

 

[Silver]

We use killed because we vaccinate at preg testing time. Weaned calves get a live and a killed. I don't trouble myself too much with the "why" of it, we have a good vet with lots of schooling and his own cows that we trust in for that.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Quote from article: "The virus is contracted from contact with infected cattle, it is also readily sexually transmitted. Those animals infected as adults usually recover from the virus and become immune. BVDV is however readily transmitted across the placenta from cow to calf. Animals that are infected in-utero are born permanently (persistently) infected with the virus. These animals excrete large volumes of virus all of their lives and are the main route of infections in other animals. Identifying and removing these animals is the mainstay of eradication schemes for the BVDV. It needs only one persistently infected animal to be introduced into a susceptible herd to cause very significant financial losses"

So, the article you posted says the cow usually recovers & becomes immune.

Yes, MLV can be unsafe if not timed properly. But, if you read the article comparing the MLV vs killed - the list of PROS for the MLV sure outweigh the Killed.
Same reasons I use it, longer protection, better protection - and cheaper.

 

[wbvs58]

http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/control-of-bovine-virus-diarrhoea-(bvd).aspx

I believe you are mistaken about a cow having complete recovery. They may outwardly get better but will still shed the virus their entire life and may produce PI calves. If vaccinated annually with a MLV they will not produce any more PI calves

Hey Geek, you obviously didn't even read your link there, it only reinforces what I said.

Ken

 

[gcreekrch]

Quote from article: "The virus is contracted from contact with infected cattle, it is also readily sexually transmitted. Those animals infected as adults usually recover from the virus and become immune. BVDV is however readily transmitted across the placenta from cow to calf. Animals that are infected in-utero are born permanently (persistently) infected with the virus. These animals excrete large volumes of virus all of their lives and are the main route of infections in other animals. Identifying and removing these animals is the mainstay of eradication schemes for the BVDV. It needs only one persistently infected animal to be introduced into a susceptible herd to cause very significant financial losses"

So, the article you posted says the cow usually recovers & becomes immune.

Yes, MLV can be unsafe if not timed properly. But, if you read the article comparing the MLV vs killed - the list of PROS for the MLV sure outweigh the Killed.
Same reasons I use it, longer protection, better protection - and cheaper.

I will discuss this with my vet again. It is my understanding the cow is immune but passes BVD along to the calf if she is not vaccinated.

 

[gcreekrch]

http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/control-of-bovine-virus-diarrhoea-(bvd).aspx

I believe you are mistaken about a cow having complete recovery. They may outwardly get better but will still shed the virus their entire life and may produce PI calves. If vaccinated annually with a MLV they will not produce any more PI calves

Hey Geek, you obviously didn't even read your link there, it only reinforces what I said.

Ken

If you can't even address me by my proper handle it proves you aren't worth discussing this further.

Those that have to insult aren't worth my time. Stay away from the sheep buddy. ;-)

 

[Bright Raven]

http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/control-of-bovine-virus-diarrhoea-(bvd).aspx

I believe you are mistaken about a cow having complete recovery. They may outwardly get better but will still shed the virus their entire life and may produce PI calves. If vaccinated annually with a MLV they will not produce any more PI calves

Hey Geek, you obviously didn't even read your link there, it only reinforces what I said.

Ken

If you can't even address me by my proper handle it proves you aren't worth discussing this further.

Those that have to insult aren't worth my time. Stay away from the sheep buddy. ;-)

I may be wrong but I don't believe Ken did that deliberately. I say that because I was reading your User name that way. When I read his address to you, I didn't notice it as disrespect. After you mention it, I can distinguish the difference. In all the time I have been here, Ken has to rank as one of the top 10 gentleman. Never, not once, has he called a name.

 

[gcreekrch]

Hey Geek, you obviously didn't even read your link there, it only reinforces what I said.

Ken

If you can't even address me by my proper handle it proves you aren't worth discussing this further.

Those that have to insult aren't worth my time. Stay away from the sheep buddy. ;-)

I may be wrong but I don't believe Ken did that deliberately. I say that because I was reading your User name that way. When I read his address to you, I didn't notice it as disrespect. After you mention it, I can distinguish the difference. In all the time I have been here, Ken has to rank as one of the top 10 gentleman. Never, not once, has he called a name.

If so, he has made the same error twice. I disregarded the first time...... No need for you to apologize for your neighbors, we're all supposed to be grownups here.

Everywhere else calls me gcreek. The actual name of our operation is Guichon Creek Ranch, hence the abbreviation.

 

[wbvs58]

Hey Geek, you obviously didn't even read your link there, it only reinforces what I said.

Ken

If you can't even address me by my proper handle it proves you aren't worth discussing this further.

Those that have to insult aren't worth my time. Stay away from the sheep buddy. ;-)

I may be wrong but I don't believe Ken did that deliberately. I say that because I was reading your User name that way. When I read his address to you, I didn't notice it as disrespect. After you mention it, I can distinguish the difference. In all the time I have been here, Ken has to rank as one of the top 10 gentleman. Never, not once, has he called a name.

Hear, hear Ron.

Ken

 

[wbvs58]

Quote from article: "The virus is contracted from contact with infected cattle, it is also readily sexually transmitted. Those animals infected as adults usually recover from the virus and become immune. BVDV is however readily transmitted across the placenta from cow to calf. Animals that are infected in-utero are born permanently (persistently) infected with the virus. These animals excrete large volumes of virus all of their lives and are the main route of infections in other animals. Identifying and removing these animals is the mainstay of eradication schemes for the BVDV. It needs only one persistently infected animal to be introduced into a susceptible herd to cause very significant financial losses"

So, the article you posted says the cow usually recovers & becomes immune.

Yes, MLV can be unsafe if not timed properly. But, if you read the article comparing the MLV vs killed - the list of PROS for the MLV sure outweigh the Killed.
Same reasons I use it, longer protection, better protection - and cheaper.

I will discuss this with my vet again. It is my understanding the cow is immune but passes BVD along to the calf if she is not vaccinated.

Dam auto spell check see if I get it right this time.

Gcreek, discuss it with your vet again but this is not what you were saying previously. You were saying that the cow becomes persistently infected for the rest of her life which is incorrect. If a cow with no immunity becomes infected with BVD when 3-4mths pregnant and that calf survives then that calf will be a PI if after 4 mths gestation, the calf can produce antibodies and will recover from the virus but will still be illthrifty and have defects. The cow however recovers fully and will not continue to shed the virus. For what it is worth this article covers it well.

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/asset ... ection.pdf

What my gripe with you is that you have come onto this forum sprouting how you vaccinate with massives of vaccines plus simultaneosly inject top shelf antibiotics to your purchases as though this is the gold standard and what everyone should do and yet you know very little about the diseases especially BVD. For a start your use of antibiotics as a prophylactic is very irresponsible and is the reason why authorities are clamping down on their use in food producing animals. The world wide market for meat is looking for meat produced with fewer and fewer inputs such as this.

Ken

 

[Silver]

For a start your use of antibiotics as a prophylactic is very irresponsible and is the reason why authorities are clamping down on their use in food producing animals. The world wide market for meat is looking for meat produced with fewer and fewer inputs such as this.

Ken

I know you addressed this to gcreek, but I don't believe using antibiotics as a prophylactic at time of receiving cattle to mix with cattle foreign to them is a bad idea. I got burned once by not doing this once and would never attempt it again if I ever found myself in the unfortunate position of buying cows again. This is also standard procedure for feedlots everywhere. When feeders are brought in they are dosed with antibiotics and then vaccinated according to their programme. Which is why I don't vaccinate calves for anything other than cocci, but I already had that argument so no need to go there again now.
The big push regarding antibiotics is with regards to the daily feeding of it in the ration for weight gain purposes and that's a whole different proposition from protecting your investments from dying at your feet while you watch helplessly.

 

[gcreekrch]

For a start your use of antibiotics as a prophylactic is very irresponsible and is the reason why authorities are clamping down on their use in food producing animals. The world wide market for meat is looking for meat produced with fewer and fewer inputs such as this.

Ken

I know you addressed this to gcreek, but I don't believe using antibiotics as a prophylactic at time of receiving cattle to mix with cattle foreign to them is a bad idea. I got burned once by not doing this once and would never attempt it again if I ever found myself in the unfortunate position of buying cows again. This is also standard procedure for feedlots everywhere. When feeders are brought in they are dosed with antibiotics and then vaccinated according to their programme. Which is why I don't vaccinate calves for anything other than cocci, but I already had that argument so no need to go there again now.
The big push regarding antibiotics is with regards to the daily feeding of it in the ration for weight gain purposes and that's a whole different proposition from protecting your investments from dying at your feet while you watch helplessly.

Exactly. Why would one invest in expensive cattle and not use the most protection possible. Because we bring in cattle, even our own get a Draxxin with their boosters.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Giving everything a shot of Draxxion is a good idea and works, but terrible husbandry and bad for the cattle business. We sure don't need anymore regulations but with practices like that we'll get them. This is just playing right into corporate farms with a vet on payroll.