PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16814023

Backgrounding beef cattle.

Daniel U Thomson·Brad J White
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Stocker operations differ significantly in management techniques and health programs. Critical control points should be identified for each farm and used to ascertain the biggest areas for potential improvement so as to allow proper allocation of resources. A customized wellness program couples medicine and management to minimize the negative impact of disease. A complete program involves animal selection, disease prevention, and management. Calves should be evaluated and classified into appropriate risk categories regarding treatment, management, and performance expectations. Disease prevention strategies should involve increasing immune responses while decreasing pathogen exposure and stress in cattle. Disease management includes the methods used to minimize the impact of illness on the population

Explore related subjects

Animal HusbandryAnimal WelfareAnimalsCattleCattle DiseasesPrimary PreventionVaccinationVeterinary MedicineJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel U Thomson, Brad J White. 2006. Backgrounding beef cattle.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2006.03.010

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Detection of two porcine circovirus type 2 genotypic groups in United States swine herds.

In late 2005, sporadic cases of an acute onset disease of high mortality were observed in 10- to 16-week-old growing pigs among several swine herds of the United States. Tissues from the affected pigs in Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina were examined, and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) was detected consistently among these tissues. Phylogenetically, PCV2 can be divided into two major genotypic groups, PCV2-group 1 and PCV2-group 2. Whereas PCV2-group 1 isolates were detected in all the diseased animals, only two of the diseased animals harbored PCV2-group 2 isolates. This observation is important because PCV2-group 1 isolates had never been reported in the United States before (GenBank as of May 16, 2006), and they are closely related to the PCV2-group 1 isolates that have been described in Europe and Asia, previously. Our analysis revealed that each genotypic group contains a distinct stretch of nucleotide or amino acid sequence that may serve as a signature motif for PCV2-group 1 or PCV2-group 2 isolates.

Animal Husbandry↗
PubMed2007

Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls.

The effects of gestation housing systems on sow and litter performance were evaluated for 2.5 yr in southwest Iowa. Gestation housing system treatments were as follows: 1) individual gestation stalls in a mechanically ventilated confinement building with a partially slatted floor and a manure flush system and 2) group pens with individual feed stalls in deep-bedded, naturally ventilated hoop barns. In all, 957 litters from 353 sows were evaluated. Number of pigs born alive per litter differed for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.002). Sows gestated in hoop barns gave birth to more live pigs per litter (10.0 +/- 0.2 pigs) than sows gestated in stalls (9.3 +/- 0.2 pigs). Preweaning mortality was not different for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.70). Cross-fostering was done to equalize litter size within 24 h of birth, which resulted in an equal number of weaned pigs per sow (P = 0.50) regardless of gestation housing treatment. The weaning-to-breeding interval was different (P = 0.01), with sows kept in stalls (4.3 +/- 0.6 d) returning to estrus sooner than sows gestated in hoop barns (6.0 +/- 0.6 d). These results indicate that gestating sows can be housed as groups in deep-bedded hoop barns equipped with individual feeding stalls and will perform comparably to gestating sows housed in confinement systems with individual gestation stalls.

Animal Husbandry↗