Livestock Management RANCHING


Modifi ed-Live IBR Vaccines Implicated in Abortion Cases


W


HEN CATTLE PRODUCERS SELECT A vaccine to protect against


infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), they expect their cows and heifers will produce healthy calves. Is an inactivated (INV) or modifi ed- live (MLV) vaccine best suited for use in pregnant cows? In 2004 some MLV vaccines got


the green light for use in pregnant animals, but recent research by university experts, diagnosticians and veterinarians demonstrates that MLVs can put pregnancies and con- ception rates at risk, unlike their INV counterpart.


The risks? Researchers at several univer- sities recently reported MLVs can


have a detrimental effect on re- production, resulting in abnormal estrous cycles, reduced conception rates and, potentially, abortions. Two articles have recently been


published in peer-reviewed sci- entifi c journals to support these fi ndings. A study published in the January 2013 issue of Theriogenol- ogy raises questions about using MLVs in breeding females and na- ïve heifers. Another article, published in the


Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), ad- dresses a diagnostic case study fol- lowing multiple abortions within a University of Wyoming-owned herd of replacement heifers after they were vaccinated with an IBR MLV.


TurretGate Remote


Entire Moly F.Z.A. System moves cattle through the


“Our People Make The Difference”


.....helps keep Us out of high impact areas; the System moves the animals


MOLY MFG., INC.


molymfg.com 785-472-3388


62 The Cattleman August 2013 T


E T


T E TM TM ®


Smiley Burnett, Manager P.O. Box 730


Hart, Texas 79043


(Cell) 806-681-4970 (Offi ce) 806-938-2151 (Fax) 806-938-2357


thecattlemanmagazine.com


 Conveniently located near major packing companies


 Competitively priced feedstuffs  Favorable weather conditions  Cattle and feed fi nancing available


University of Wyoming herd lost a quarter of the calves “In this instance, animals in


our university herd had been ap- propriately vaccinated pre-breed- ing with a modifi ed-live vaccine, and they were vaccinated again at about 7 months of pregnancy,” notes Dr. Donal O’Toole, M.V.B., Ph.D., department of veterinary science, University of Wyoming. O’Toole explains that starting around 30 days post-vaccination, a series of abortions began which continued to about 50 days. The total repro- ductive loss was a disturbing 25 percent. “What we found at the Wyoming


State Vet Lab when we started look- ing into these recent episodes was


U


U


A


A


R


R


G


G


R


R


T


E T


E


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118