vaccines, killed vs live
- Thread starter dun
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
hillsdown
Well-known member
Thanks for the link Dun. Good read .
kenny thomas
Well-known member
Good reading. We have been told for years that the modified live is what all the feedlots want. Maybe some of this info will help change this.
Maybe it's Novartis propaganda. They funded the research which has clearly made their product seem superior. NOT NOT NOT saying it isn't for real . . . just saying watch who's doing the saying . . . .
For his part, Bonnot recommends using an inactivated vaccine for pregnant cattle. "We've been using Vira Shield products for at least five years now and have seen a significant increase in reproductive efficiency," said Bonnot. "The improvement has been dramatic in some herds. It's safe, cost-effective and provides immunity against the major bacterial and viral reproductive diseases in our area."
Note the pimping of Vira Shield. Not much scientific about that and they funded the "research". :roll:
For his part, Bonnot recommends using an inactivated vaccine for pregnant cattle. "We've been using Vira Shield products for at least five years now and have seen a significant increase in reproductive efficiency," said Bonnot. "The improvement has been dramatic in some herds. It's safe, cost-effective and provides immunity against the major bacterial and viral reproductive diseases in our area."
Note the pimping of Vira Shield. Not much scientific about that and they funded the "research". :roll:
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
I agree with "watching" who funded a project.
But, it stands to reason that they are probably a lot better than they were 25 years ago - at least I would hope they were.
I'm a MLV user myself. Old school - for now, til my vet confirms I should do something different.
But, it stands to reason that they are probably a lot better than they were 25 years ago - at least I would hope they were.
I'm a MLV user myself. Old school - for now, til my vet confirms I should do something different.
Lucky_P
Well-known member
MLV and killed preparations both have their place. Same deal for intranasal and injectible MLV products - there are instances where one is probably preferrable over the other.
Knowing how to interpret 'comparisons' between different products is sort of tricky. Remember what Mark Twain said about "lies, damned lies, and statistics"...
Unless they show the hard scientific data, anecdotal stuff like, "We've been using XXXX products for at least five years now and have seen a significant increase in reproductive efficiency", doesn't really mean anything. I could say, "I've been giving my cows castor oil for the past five years and have seen a significant increase in reproductive efficiency" - and it might be true, but it wouldn't necessarily be because of the castor oil.
'Watching who funded it' is misplaced concern, and one that I've played into in the past, but it's not valid.
Yes, drug/biologics manufacturers fund the bulk of these studies - but if they didn't, I can guarantee you that the studies/comparisons wouldn't get done, because universities don't have the $$ to do it otherwise - where else would the money come from?
But, even more importantly, those studies - and their design, results, and interpretation - are reported to and scrutinized by FDA(drugs) &/or USDA(biologics), and if things are not correct in any of those areas, the responsible agency will reject them, limit label claims - and, in some cases, require them to remove or cease & desist from making unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of their product - and it has happened in more than one instance.
There are plenty of those studies that end up NOT showing a particular product to be significantly 'better' than another product - but they don't trumpet those results, or use them in a marketing blitz, but you could see 'em if you filed a FOI request.
For biologics(vaccines, bacterins, toxoids, etc.), USDA now has 5 label claim categories - see an article detailing those here: http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/u ... ne-labels/
Currently, there is only ONE cattle biologic on the market that has met the qualifications for 'prevention of infection' category - which means that 95% of animals vaccinated with it will not become infected when challenged with field(or experimental) exposure.
There are only four licensed cattle biologics that have met the qualifications for 'prevention of disease' category (all MLV products), which means that while vaccinated animals may become infected, 90-95% will be protected from developing clinical disease, and few will require treatment.
I'm not hitting on ViraShield, but since it's already been mentioned - its label claim places it in the 'aids in prevention of disease' category, meaning that it doesn't necessarily prevent infection, but that 75-80% of animals vaccinated with it will be expected not to develop clinical disease if challenged - but that still means that as many as 25% of animals vaccinated with that product may become ill and require treatment. Now, I don't know if it's in that category because that's 'all it will do', or if they've just not yet gone to the trouble to jump through all the hoops it would require to prove to USDA that it deserves a 'higher' label claim.
Knowing how to interpret 'comparisons' between different products is sort of tricky. Remember what Mark Twain said about "lies, damned lies, and statistics"...
Unless they show the hard scientific data, anecdotal stuff like, "We've been using XXXX products for at least five years now and have seen a significant increase in reproductive efficiency", doesn't really mean anything. I could say, "I've been giving my cows castor oil for the past five years and have seen a significant increase in reproductive efficiency" - and it might be true, but it wouldn't necessarily be because of the castor oil.
'Watching who funded it' is misplaced concern, and one that I've played into in the past, but it's not valid.
Yes, drug/biologics manufacturers fund the bulk of these studies - but if they didn't, I can guarantee you that the studies/comparisons wouldn't get done, because universities don't have the $$ to do it otherwise - where else would the money come from?
But, even more importantly, those studies - and their design, results, and interpretation - are reported to and scrutinized by FDA(drugs) &/or USDA(biologics), and if things are not correct in any of those areas, the responsible agency will reject them, limit label claims - and, in some cases, require them to remove or cease & desist from making unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of their product - and it has happened in more than one instance.
There are plenty of those studies that end up NOT showing a particular product to be significantly 'better' than another product - but they don't trumpet those results, or use them in a marketing blitz, but you could see 'em if you filed a FOI request.
For biologics(vaccines, bacterins, toxoids, etc.), USDA now has 5 label claim categories - see an article detailing those here: http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/u ... ne-labels/
Currently, there is only ONE cattle biologic on the market that has met the qualifications for 'prevention of infection' category - which means that 95% of animals vaccinated with it will not become infected when challenged with field(or experimental) exposure.
There are only four licensed cattle biologics that have met the qualifications for 'prevention of disease' category (all MLV products), which means that while vaccinated animals may become infected, 90-95% will be protected from developing clinical disease, and few will require treatment.
I'm not hitting on ViraShield, but since it's already been mentioned - its label claim places it in the 'aids in prevention of disease' category, meaning that it doesn't necessarily prevent infection, but that 75-80% of animals vaccinated with it will be expected not to develop clinical disease if challenged - but that still means that as many as 25% of animals vaccinated with that product may become ill and require treatment. Now, I don't know if it's in that category because that's 'all it will do', or if they've just not yet gone to the trouble to jump through all the hoops it would require to prove to USDA that it deserves a 'higher' label claim.
westernvendor.com
Member
I've been considering MLV instead of killed because the booster shot isn't as critical in the MLV and I can't always get that second shot into them in 21 days. I'm a little concerned that the MLV will sero-convert, so I haven't used it.
Anyone have problems with the MLV making them sick? I'm really leaning towards using it.
Anyone have problems with the MLV making them sick? I'm really leaning towards using it.
Commercialfarmer
Well-known member
There is a lot of important information that is not touched on in this article like most articles as they are not written with supporting data. Nothing was mentioned on population size or repeatable studies specifically for this vaccine, not just a lasso of killed vaccines are better than we thought. As Lucky_P mentioned, statistics and lies... The best way to find out the deficiencies in the vaccine, is to wait for competing companies to respond to the information. Then the truth will be in the middle. Kinda like I watch the news- a little Fox and a little CNN and then figure it is somewhere in between.
The statements reguarding MLV use in pregnant cattle and associated abortions doesn't give any factual information as to the chances of abortions in cattle previously vaccinated vs those receiving pregnant cattle receiving the first vaccine ever. It has been long established that pregnant cattle receiving many types of MLV for the FIRST time are substantially more likely to abort compared to cattle previously receiving either a MLV or Killed (but I would like to know further information about the diagnostic labs concerns). Abortions with pregnant cattle receiving MLV without previous vaccination is NOT new, so I am concerned this may be a twist on the information to make a selling point. Seems like common protocol is to give killed for the first year to pregnant cattle, and then followed with MLV in subsequent years or give them a MLV prior to or following pregnancy. All killed vaccines that I am aware of require a booster as well.
It takes a ton of money to get FDA approval and manufacturers need to get something out on the market and recover their losses. So creative wording on new products is common.
The statements reguarding MLV use in pregnant cattle and associated abortions doesn't give any factual information as to the chances of abortions in cattle previously vaccinated vs those receiving pregnant cattle receiving the first vaccine ever. It has been long established that pregnant cattle receiving many types of MLV for the FIRST time are substantially more likely to abort compared to cattle previously receiving either a MLV or Killed (but I would like to know further information about the diagnostic labs concerns). Abortions with pregnant cattle receiving MLV without previous vaccination is NOT new, so I am concerned this may be a twist on the information to make a selling point. Seems like common protocol is to give killed for the first year to pregnant cattle, and then followed with MLV in subsequent years or give them a MLV prior to or following pregnancy. All killed vaccines that I am aware of require a booster as well.
It takes a ton of money to get FDA approval and manufacturers need to get something out on the market and recover their losses. So creative wording on new products is common.
fargus
Well-known member
We switched to MLV about 10 years ago, and despite the extra management required, I won't be going back any time soon.
We vaccinate cows and bred heifers in July, in the short window between the end of calving and the beginning of breeding season. Calves are boostered in September. Since switching we haven't had to treat anything (including fresh-weaned replacement heifers) for anything other than pink-eye and footrot.
(No respiratory issues means no Micotil on the place, and none of the expensive antibiotics kept in stock here, no complaints from me!)
So while I understand the possibility of MLVs making cattle sick, we haven't experienced it. Karen mentioned that it is another stress. That's true, which is why we give the calves both shots while they are still on the cow. The booster is given at least a month prior to weaning, so we haven't had problems that way either.
There is also a statistical possibility that cattle can go in to anaphylactic shock when administered a MLV. Some are more likely to cause it than others. Again, we haven't personally experienced that, but I know it DOES happen. If you are concerned about it, you can be ready with a shot of steroids to try and bring them out of shock.
The calves that DO die shortly after being administered are likely persistently infected (PI) calves. It hurts the first time through, but by eliminating PI cattle from the herd the entire group of cattle is healthier, and you have fewer problems down the road. We've been lucky so far to not experience any of the negative consequences possible with a MLV protocol, but like I said, we won't be switching back without overwhelming scientific and real-world evidence, and a clear-cut economics reason for doing so.
We vaccinate cows and bred heifers in July, in the short window between the end of calving and the beginning of breeding season. Calves are boostered in September. Since switching we haven't had to treat anything (including fresh-weaned replacement heifers) for anything other than pink-eye and footrot.
(No respiratory issues means no Micotil on the place, and none of the expensive antibiotics kept in stock here, no complaints from me!)
So while I understand the possibility of MLVs making cattle sick, we haven't experienced it. Karen mentioned that it is another stress. That's true, which is why we give the calves both shots while they are still on the cow. The booster is given at least a month prior to weaning, so we haven't had problems that way either.
There is also a statistical possibility that cattle can go in to anaphylactic shock when administered a MLV. Some are more likely to cause it than others. Again, we haven't personally experienced that, but I know it DOES happen. If you are concerned about it, you can be ready with a shot of steroids to try and bring them out of shock.
The calves that DO die shortly after being administered are likely persistently infected (PI) calves. It hurts the first time through, but by eliminating PI cattle from the herd the entire group of cattle is healthier, and you have fewer problems down the road. We've been lucky so far to not experience any of the negative consequences possible with a MLV protocol, but like I said, we won't be switching back without overwhelming scientific and real-world evidence, and a clear-cut economics reason for doing so.
vclavin
Well-known member
MLV is also our choice. Baby calves receive it under 1 month old , again at weaning, again at booster and again at yearling.
MLV at prebreeding , at preg check, pregnant cows receive lepto,parvo. We do not give MLV to pregnat animals although vet swears it is OK to do so as long as cow has had MLV pre breeding.
We now only treat for pink eye.
1st round of MLV killed several PI calves. Had all animals tested, destroyed all PI animals, all are now tested as babies. Clean for years.
Valerie
MLV at prebreeding , at preg check, pregnant cows receive lepto,parvo. We do not give MLV to pregnat animals although vet swears it is OK to do so as long as cow has had MLV pre breeding.
We now only treat for pink eye.
1st round of MLV killed several PI calves. Had all animals tested, destroyed all PI animals, all are now tested as babies. Clean for years.
Valerie
