TexasJerseyMilker
Well-known member
To bad the government doesn't come down this hard on dope heads and the drugs flooding across the border.
OTC Meds Scheduled to become Rx Only
- Thread starter Hischild
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Dave
Well-known member
There are two vet clinics and 2 vets who just work out of their truck. Both of the clinics have multiple vets but only one has cattle working facilities. One of the traveling vets has a little store front with a gal there to answer the phone, make appointments, and sell some stuff. I stopped there to pick up some Draxxin. All she asked was did I want name brand Draxxin or the generic stuff for half price(Draxxin patent expired). I told her that she would be selling LA200 fairly soon. She knew nothing about this.
RDFF
Well-known member
I think that we're missing (or simply denying the validity of) one of the primary basis for curbing the availability of antibiotics.
There's been serious concern about "developing drug resistance" in bacteria/pathogens for a very long time... and THAT IS a very real thing. It's just like "herbicide resistant weeds"... and we should all be well aware of those. By restricting the use of very popular and effective antibiotics, and also by "required rotating" in the use of several antibiotics that are/may be effective against certain pathogens, we DO extend the effective useful life of them, and help to KEEP them effective. I'm not saying that there isn't some goal to effect "control" over the masses as well... I'm just saying that there IS good scientific basis for restricting drug use.
In large scale animal agriculture, we've gotten used to using many antibiotics on a prophylactic basis, and this is what that then becomes... those antibiotics DO, over time, become "less effective", because pathogens DO develop "resistance"... and THAT is what we need to avoid, so that when we DO need these drugs to save lives (in particular, HUMAN lives), they can and will still be effective. Just because we regularly use a drug against a particular pathogen in animal agriculture effectively, doesn't mean that the same or a variant of that pathogen won't crop up within the human population... If that pathogen has been widely exposed for enough time in the environment to a particular antibiotic, it WILL have had opportunity to have developed some degree of "resistance" to it. And THAT can then begin to have a cost in HUMAN lives.
None of us can deny how heavily and prophylactically tetracycline, for example, has been used in animal agriculture... along with many others. The more we use any particular drug, the more opportunity we are creating for resistance to it.
There's been serious concern about "developing drug resistance" in bacteria/pathogens for a very long time... and THAT IS a very real thing. It's just like "herbicide resistant weeds"... and we should all be well aware of those. By restricting the use of very popular and effective antibiotics, and also by "required rotating" in the use of several antibiotics that are/may be effective against certain pathogens, we DO extend the effective useful life of them, and help to KEEP them effective. I'm not saying that there isn't some goal to effect "control" over the masses as well... I'm just saying that there IS good scientific basis for restricting drug use.
In large scale animal agriculture, we've gotten used to using many antibiotics on a prophylactic basis, and this is what that then becomes... those antibiotics DO, over time, become "less effective", because pathogens DO develop "resistance"... and THAT is what we need to avoid, so that when we DO need these drugs to save lives (in particular, HUMAN lives), they can and will still be effective. Just because we regularly use a drug against a particular pathogen in animal agriculture effectively, doesn't mean that the same or a variant of that pathogen won't crop up within the human population... If that pathogen has been widely exposed for enough time in the environment to a particular antibiotic, it WILL have had opportunity to have developed some degree of "resistance" to it. And THAT can then begin to have a cost in HUMAN lives.
None of us can deny how heavily and prophylactically tetracycline, for example, has been used in animal agriculture... along with many others. The more we use any particular drug, the more opportunity we are creating for resistance to it.
Buck Randall
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,697
- Reaction score
- 3,148
Good post. Additionally, there aren't likely to be any new antibiotics hitting the market for cattle in the foreseeable future, if ever again. I've already come across respiratory pathogens that are resistant to every antibiotic on the market. Reducing antibiotic use will help to prevent that from becoming the norm.
The goal of the new rules is to reduce the amount of antibiotics used in livestock. The first phase, which only applied to antibiotics added to feed, was very successful. Antibiotic use for livestock dropped significantly with no measurable impact to animal health. I expect we'll see a similar phenomenon with the new rule.
And misused. I'm on a number of cattle forums (Facebook) and it hurts my head when someone posts that they don't know what's wrong with their calf/cow/bull but gave them LA200/300. Why? What were they symptoms & did it have a temp? If it's respiratory, possible joint infections, etc. LA won't do squat.
That said, I don't believe most producers/stockers overuse antibiotics as a general rule. Nobody wants to catch & doctor an animal. And the good stuff is expensive! I have some big cows and no way am I gonna pump 'em full of $100 worth of Draxxin unless it's warranted.
Buck Randall
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,697
- Reaction score
- 3,148
I think it depends on your definition of "overuse". There are a lot of large stocker operations that buy high risk calves and use antibiotics like water. Is that overuse? They need to do it to keep those calves alive at an acceptable rate, but the situation could be entirely avoided by better management at the cow/calf level.
Unweaned, unvaccinated lightweight calves being run through sale barns is an industry problem. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it's unlikely that the status quo remains in place forever.
Good point. And probably why buyers pay a premium for preconditioned calves.
greybeard
Well-known member
A double edged sword. On the one hand, is the cow/calf guy that shoots everything that comes in with everything he has on hand, and on the other hand is the stocker that does the same thing..just because they always have.
When VFD was first being discussed, the term "therapeutic use' was seen often and this what just shooting antibiotics into every calf or heifer that comes in whether there's anything wrong with them or not means.
TexasJerseyMilker
Well-known member
I'm a nurse. Most antibiotic resistance arises in hospitals where some real humdingers form and are spread, and in people taking antibiotics at home, feel better so don't finish the prescription, saving some pills for 'later'. Also, people underdosing, for instance squirting ivermectin wormer animals not according to it's weight or that avoids the whole dose.
farmerjan
Well-known member
Exactly why I made the statement that so many of the people that have a "backyard" hobby "business" and buy and sell, have created some of this problem... bring something home from a sale, "give it a shot because it doesn't look or act right"... and then doesn't follow up with a complete treatment protocol and what they gave it may or may not have been what they needed anyway... and get something "looking and acting better" and goes on and resells it and then the animal gets sick again... and won't respond due to surviving "bugs" have developed an immunity to the anti-biotic...
And MOST good farmers, full or PART-TIME with other jobs, try to follow sensible protocol to keep animals healthy and treat those that NEED it... not just "because"....
kenny thomas
Well-known member
Jan, I know one trader here that gives every calf or cow he gets a shot of Nuflor when he gets it home. I tried to tell him to prevent illness instead but it hasn't happened yet.
farmerjan
Well-known member
You do not see enough of a premium for weaned calves, in the general stockyard market most times to justify the costs to the cow/calf producer. Been there done that.... We have gone both routes and needing separate facilities to wean and feed and contain calves just is not feasible for many of the smaller farmers.... and also for the ones getting older. Taking the calves off the cows and shipping them (trailer weaned) is the only option for many. I don't fault the small farmer for that since we have been there. We have weaned and all the last several groups and with the increase in prices OVERALL right now, it will pay.... but we also have over a 1/2 million in the purchase price of the farm we bought off the widow of our friend that we have been leasing for several years.... and the premium on those calves will not make a spit's worth of difference towards the payments even now.... when unweaned calves are bringing 2.00 plus and the weaned and vacc ones are bringing 2.10 or 2.20 and you have 45-60 days of feed and all in them... it's not economical in most cases.
farmerjan
Well-known member
I get what you are saying Kenny, because I've seen them do it here also... but then they are often turning them around within a couple weeks so they are bringing in more germs than you can shake a stick at... and not isolating any of them for even a week to make sure they aren't sick to start with.... We buy and sell some... mostly buy and hold for 30-60 days or more... bull calves we make steers, and put together groups... BUT.... they are isolated and watched for several days before we do ANYTHING to them except they get blackleg and a multi-min shot to help BOOST their immune system... and not knowing if these calves have ever been touched, blackleg is one thing that is a CHEAP preventative.... lost a few over the years and vet had diagnosed blackleg a couple times so now, most all sudden deaths like that I assume are blackleg.... and it is soooo easy to prevent... then after they are here a week or so, they will go through the chute for castrating, and all get killed virus vaccines to help boost the immune system but not challenge it the way a mlv does. It works for us... but again... we don't turn them over too fast as I suspect you don't either... like some traders do... buy at one sale, take to another sale that week or next...
kenny thomas
Well-known member
My calves are normally here 60-90 days unless I have bought them for someone else. I never buy and take them to another market. I have posted this many times before but here is what I do.
Within minutes of unloading, my calves get:
Inforce 3 Internasal
Presponse
Alpha 7
Cydectin
Bull calves knife castrated and a shot of Tetnus Antioxin.
Ralgro implant
Trim hair in ears and around head. Trim tail if needed. Older calves usually do.
Ear tagged to identify them.
Calves go out into lot with good hay but still have access to the barn. No grain for a day or two.
Cows get Inforce 3, Presponse, cydectin, ear tag and a haircut if needed. They go into a separate lot from the calves.
Everything I bring in stays in the lot for 10-12 days. Seems around 10 days is when sickness can show up.
At 14 days cows or calves bought for someone else are delivered.
