Healthy Heifer: The High Cost Of Low Calving Rates
11/04/2009 08:19AM
Bookmark
Subscribe
Preg-check season brings at least a mild level of anxiety for most cow/calf producers. From an economic standpoint, the difference between confirmed pregnancies and open cows could hardly be wider. While a pregnant cow or heifer is an asset that represents money in the bank, the open cow is a liability that represents a blank check you’re about to write.
Just one open cow can cost producers $300 a year in feed and housing alone.1 Figure in culled cow expenses—selling open cows and incurring the cost of raising or purchasing replacement animals—and it’s no wonder producers get a little anxious about conception rates.
“A pregnancy rate of 95 percent is entirely possible with a well-managed reproductive program,” said Doug Scholz, director of veterinary services, Novartis Animal Health. “So if you have more than a few open cows at preg-check it’s important to find out why.”
Scholz says that herd health is a good place to look for answers and recommends that producers work with their veterinarians to help determine the cause of below average pregnancy rates.
“From a reproductive disease standpoint, nothing can undercut calving rates as quickly as Lepto hardjo-bovis,” said Scholz. “This disease, in particular, has been shown to provide a whole range of problems including reduced conception and pregnancy rates, embryonic death and infertility. It’s also responsible for economic losses associated with rebreeding, extra days open and reduced weaning weights.”
Studies continue to show L. hardjo-bovis is prevalent in beef cow herds and is transmitted easily through shedding. A recent survey of cow-calf producers conducted at Texas A&M University found that the prevalence of animals in herds testing positive for L. hardjo-bovis was 42 percent.2
“Another problem is that identifying and diagnosing L. hardjo-bovis is difficult,” adds Scholz. “That’s why reproductive problems associated with the disease are often incorrectly blamed on insemination protocol problems, human error or other issues.”
Scholz says choosing a five- or six-way vaccine that includes L. hardjo-bovis has proven to be a cost-effective strategy for reducing reproductive failures.
“If you prevent just one calf loss, including L. hardjo-bovis in the vaccination program pays for itself,” he said. “Vaccination programs should begin when animals are young to reduce the risk of those animals becoming carriers of the disease. For producers who can’t vaccinate the entire herd, start the program with replacement heifers, which generally are more severely affected by reproductive diseases.”
Scholz recommends Vira Shield® 6 +VL5 HB because it’s effective against the L. hardjo-bovis isolate that originated in the U.S. and affects the vast majority of cattle owned by U.S. producers. It’s also safe to use on any animal, including pregnant cows, calves and nursing pregnant cows.
“Producers who want a combination of maximum flexibility and efficacy have found Vira Shield 6 +VL5 HB to be a simple and effective way to control L. hardjo-bovis and significantly improve reproduction success rates.”
1. Webster HW. Pregnancy determination in beef cattle. Clemson Extension. Beef. August 1988.
2. Powell J. Hardjo-bovis in beef cattle – A new challenge. University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service. Beef
Champs. February 2005.
Vira Shield is a registered trademark of Novartis AG.