Comparative efficacy of tilmicosin versus tulathromycin as a metaphylactic antimicrobial in feedlot calves at moderate risk for respiratory disease.

Veterinary Therapeutics Pub Date : 2008-01-01
Joyce Van Donkersgoed, John Merrill, Steven Hendrick
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of tilmicosin versus tulathromycin as a metaphylactic antimicrobial in feedlot calves at moderate risk for respiratory disease.","authors":"Joyce Van Donkersgoed,&nbsp;John Merrill,&nbsp;Steven Hendrick","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of tilmicosin (MIC) versus tulathromycin (DRAX) as a metaphylactic antimicrobial in feedlot calves at moderate risk for bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Calves that received DRAX had significantly (P < or = .05) lower initial BRD treatment rates compared with calves that received MIC. However, there were no significant differences in the BRD relapse rate, railer rate, total mortality rate, BRD mortality rate, average daily gain, and dry matter conversion between the two groups. The economic advantage of the MIC group was Can$8.29/animal. Based on these results, while DRAX was more efficacious in reducing initial treatments for BRD in feedlot calves at moderate risk for disease, MIC was more cost-effective. The lower initial BRD treatment costs in the DRAX group did not offset the higher metaphylactic cost of DRAX.</p>","PeriodicalId":51211,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Therapeutics","volume":"9 4","pages":"291-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of tilmicosin (MIC) versus tulathromycin (DRAX) as a metaphylactic antimicrobial in feedlot calves at moderate risk for bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Calves that received DRAX had significantly (P < or = .05) lower initial BRD treatment rates compared with calves that received MIC. However, there were no significant differences in the BRD relapse rate, railer rate, total mortality rate, BRD mortality rate, average daily gain, and dry matter conversion between the two groups. The economic advantage of the MIC group was Can$8.29/animal. Based on these results, while DRAX was more efficacious in reducing initial treatments for BRD in feedlot calves at moderate risk for disease, MIC was more cost-effective. The lower initial BRD treatment costs in the DRAX group did not offset the higher metaphylactic cost of DRAX.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
替尔米科星与图拉霉素作为一种过敏性抗菌剂对中度呼吸道疾病风险的饲养场小牛的疗效比较
本研究的目的是比较tilmicosin (MIC)和tulathromycin (DRAX)作为一种过敏性抗菌剂在中度牛呼吸道疾病(BRD)风险的饲养场小牛中的疗效和成本效益。与接受MIC的犊牛相比,接受DRAX的犊牛的初始BRD治疗率显著(P <或= 0.05)降低。然而,两组在BRD复发率、railer率、总死亡率、BRD死亡率、平均日增重和干物质转化率方面无显著差异。MIC组的经济优势为8.29加元/头。基于这些结果,虽然DRAX在减少中度疾病风险的饲养场小牛BRD的初始治疗方面更有效,但MIC更具成本效益。DRAX组较低的BRD初始治疗成本并不能抵消DRAX较高的过敏性成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hemodynamic effects of an intravenous infusion of medetomidine at six different dose regimens in isoflurane-anesthetized dogs. Pilot immunization of mice infected with an equine strain of Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis. Single-dose oral pharmacokinetics of pergolide mesylate in healthy adult mares. Evaluation of the potential use of adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: a pilot study. Antimicrobial activity of tulathromycin and 14 other antimicrobials against virulent Rhodococcus equi in vitro.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1