对饲养场犊牛饲料和/或水中预防性用药效果的邮件调查。

S W Martin
{"title":"对饲养场犊牛饲料和/或水中预防性用药效果的邮件调查。","authors":"S W Martin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A mail survey of feedlot owners was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antimicrobials, given in the water, or in the ration at preventing illness and/or death. One hundred and twenty-seven farmers from southwestern Ontario collaborated in the study. The percentage of calves requiring individual antimicrobial treatment, for any reason within 28 days of arrival was 22.6% (median 17.8%) and 0.6% (median 0.2%) died in that period. The use of medicated starter rations was not associated with either treatment or mortality rates until the effects of a number of other variables were controlled, analytically. Thereafter, the use of medicated feed was associated with a decrease in mortality rate, but was unrelated to morbidity rate. Overall, the use of medicated water was not associated with treatment or mortality rates. The use of sulphonamides was associated with decreased morbidity, but increased mortality rates. After controlling, analytically using multiple regression, the effects of other variables, the use of medicated water was associated with a significant increase in mortality rates. The other major factors which influenced mortality rates were the number of calves per group, the number of subgroups of calves in each group and whether the group contained cattle from different sources; all were related to increased mortality rates. During a two year period, more feedlot owners appeared to be using medicated rations as opposed to medicated water, as a means of providing antimicrobials to their newly arrived calves.</p>","PeriodicalId":9546,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of comparative medicine : Revue canadienne de medecine comparee","volume":"49 1","pages":"15-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1236110/pdf/compmed00001-0017.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A mail survey of the efficacy of prophylactic medication in feed and/or water of feedlot calves.\",\"authors\":\"S W Martin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A mail survey of feedlot owners was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antimicrobials, given in the water, or in the ration at preventing illness and/or death. One hundred and twenty-seven farmers from southwestern Ontario collaborated in the study. The percentage of calves requiring individual antimicrobial treatment, for any reason within 28 days of arrival was 22.6% (median 17.8%) and 0.6% (median 0.2%) died in that period. The use of medicated starter rations was not associated with either treatment or mortality rates until the effects of a number of other variables were controlled, analytically. Thereafter, the use of medicated feed was associated with a decrease in mortality rate, but was unrelated to morbidity rate. Overall, the use of medicated water was not associated with treatment or mortality rates. The use of sulphonamides was associated with decreased morbidity, but increased mortality rates. After controlling, analytically using multiple regression, the effects of other variables, the use of medicated water was associated with a significant increase in mortality rates. The other major factors which influenced mortality rates were the number of calves per group, the number of subgroups of calves in each group and whether the group contained cattle from different sources; all were related to increased mortality rates. During a two year period, more feedlot owners appeared to be using medicated rations as opposed to medicated water, as a means of providing antimicrobials to their newly arrived calves.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian journal of comparative medicine : Revue canadienne de medecine comparee\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"15-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1985-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1236110/pdf/compmed00001-0017.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian journal of comparative medicine : Revue canadienne de medecine comparee\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of comparative medicine : Revue canadienne de medecine comparee","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

摘要

对饲养场所有者进行了一项邮件调查,以评估在水中或口粮中给予预防性抗菌剂在预防疾病和/或死亡方面的效果。来自安大略省西南部的127名农民参与了这项研究。在出生后28天内因任何原因需要单独抗菌治疗的犊牛比例为22.6%(中位数17.8%),在此期间死亡的犊牛比例为0.6%(中位数0.2%)。在一些其他变量的影响得到分析性控制之前,药物起始口粮的使用与治疗或死亡率都没有关联。此后,加药饲料的使用与死亡率的降低有关,但与发病率无关。总体而言,使用药水与治疗或死亡率无关。磺胺类药物的使用降低了发病率,但增加了死亡率。在使用多元回归对其他变量的影响进行控制和分析后,使用药水与死亡率的显著增加有关。影响死亡率的其他主要因素是每组小牛的数量、每组小牛的亚组数量以及每组是否包含来自不同来源的牛;所有这些都与死亡率增加有关。在两年的时间里,越来越多的饲养场主人似乎在使用药物口粮,而不是药物水,作为给新生小牛提供抗菌剂的一种手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A mail survey of the efficacy of prophylactic medication in feed and/or water of feedlot calves.

A mail survey of feedlot owners was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antimicrobials, given in the water, or in the ration at preventing illness and/or death. One hundred and twenty-seven farmers from southwestern Ontario collaborated in the study. The percentage of calves requiring individual antimicrobial treatment, for any reason within 28 days of arrival was 22.6% (median 17.8%) and 0.6% (median 0.2%) died in that period. The use of medicated starter rations was not associated with either treatment or mortality rates until the effects of a number of other variables were controlled, analytically. Thereafter, the use of medicated feed was associated with a decrease in mortality rate, but was unrelated to morbidity rate. Overall, the use of medicated water was not associated with treatment or mortality rates. The use of sulphonamides was associated with decreased morbidity, but increased mortality rates. After controlling, analytically using multiple regression, the effects of other variables, the use of medicated water was associated with a significant increase in mortality rates. The other major factors which influenced mortality rates were the number of calves per group, the number of subgroups of calves in each group and whether the group contained cattle from different sources; all were related to increased mortality rates. During a two year period, more feedlot owners appeared to be using medicated rations as opposed to medicated water, as a means of providing antimicrobials to their newly arrived calves.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Chlorpyrifos for control of the short-nosed cattle louse, Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch) (Anoplura, Haematopinidae) during winter. Inability to experimentally produce a polyneuropathy in dogs given chronic oral low level lead. Epizootiological survey of parainfluenza-3, reovirus-3, respiratory syncytial and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis viral antibodies in sheep and goat flocks in Quebec. Preliminary studies with a live streptomycin-dependent Pasteurella multocida and Pasteurella haemolytica vaccine for the prevention of bovine pneumonic pasteurellosis. Pulmonary response to intratracheal challenge with Pasteurella haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida.
×
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