How to optimize your cattle deworming program?
How to optimize your cattle deworming program?
Three questions to improve ROI potential
By M. Wayne Ayers, DVM, Beef Cattle Technical Consultant, Elanco Animal Health
Beef producers understand how deworming helps to maximize animal health and contributes to operational profitability, but building a strategic deworming program that yields effective results and a positive return on investment can be a tricky task.
Answering three critical questions can help ensure cattle operations are set up for success by decreasing parasite burden and improving weight gain and performance.
1. Do I know what parasites are present?
Understanding what parasites are present in cattle is the first step to success. Of the nearly 15 species of worms that affect U.S. cattle, four parasites are responsible for the most significant economic losses – the brown stomach worm (Ostertagia osteragi), Barber’s pole worm (Haemonchus placei), cattle bankrupt worm (Cooperia spp.) and small stomach worm (Trichostrongylus axei).
Determining which cattle are infected with parasites, what species are represented and at what population level, using species-specific quantitative analysis, will help you choose the most effective deworming product and target the most susceptible cattle for more timely treatment.
2. Do I know which cattle are at the greatest risk?
When assessing your herd, youngstock are at the highest risk and stand to suffer the greatest potential economic loss due to parasitism. Even when subclinical infections occur without visible symptoms, internal parasites can decrease calf performance, including reduced growth rates. This can limit calves’ ability to reach their full genetic potential and can negatively impact an operation’s profitability.
As cattle age and their immune system has a history of parasite interaction, they become less susceptible to infection and other effects of parasites.
It’s also important to practice refugia when considering which cattle to treat. Refugia is a deworming strategy that maintains a low level of untreated sensitive parasite larvae on pastures, reducing selection pressure and resistance development that can result from repeated deworming.
Capitalizing on the ability of mature cattle to develop some degree of immunity to parasitism, Elanco developed a refugia strategy called “4 Score and 3 Years” for cattle. This resistance management strategy calls for mature cattle with a body condition score of greater than 4.5 and older than 3 years of age to remain unexposed to dewormer. All cattle three years of age and younger, regardless of body condition, should be dewormed.
Remember, what’s in the cow is what’s on the pasture, what’s on the pasture is what’s in the calf, and what’s in the calf is what causes economic loss. The “4 Score and 3 Years” strategy helps maintain a parasite pasture population that can be effectively managed in youngstock.
3. Am I using the most effective product?
Evaluating and choosing the dewormer best suited for your operation can be a daunting task.
As generic formulations are added to farm store shelves, it can be tempting to choose the lowest cost option. However, studies have demonstrated potential effectiveness differences between pioneer dewormers and generic formulations.1,2 These studies raise the question of whether generic formulations are equally effective.
Achieving efficacy while reducing potential resistance development can be a difficult balance to strike, and reduced effectiveness often equals reduced profitability.
Cydectin® is the pioneer moxidectin cattle dewormer with 25 years of demonstrated effectiveness. It provides broad-spectrum control of both internal and external parasites, including the four most economically significant parasites.
Cydectin’s active ingredient, moxidectin, has a novel molecular structure and is the only macrocyclic lactone class dewormer in the milbemycin subclass. With a lack of new dewormer molecules on the market, producers can reduce the risk of resistance development by leveraging this unique chemistry.
Compared to other common dewormers, Cydectin Pour-On has proven to reduce fecal egg counts and put more dollars in producers’ pockets by numerically increasing weight gain and additional profit per head3.
In one head-to-head study, Cydectin Pour On was proven to be effective in reducing fecal egg counts by 96.6% assessed by a fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT).3 This reduction was statistically (P<0.05) greater than Ivomec (FECRT = 43.6%). The researchers also found the following derived benefits of treating stocker cattle with Cydectin Pour On:
• +60 lbs. and $150/head more than the untreated control*
• +33 lbs. and $82.50/head more than Ivomec® Pour-On* (ivermectin)
• +16 lbs. and $40/head more than Dectomax® Pour-On (doramectin)
• +11 lbs. and $27.50/head more than Eprinex® Pour-On (eprinomectin)
*Significantly greater (P < 0.05)
(Weights with an asterisk are statistically different from Cydectin Pour On at P<0.05. Dollar differences calculated 07March2024 using $2.50/cwt value)
Implementing a strategic and well-rounded deworming program is essential to maintaining the health and productivity of beef cattle. Answering these three important questions ensures your deworming program further contributes to your operation’s profitability and sustainability.
Remember, a healthy herd is a productive herd, and an investment in deworming goes a long way to ensuring the success of your beef cattle business.
Visit CydectinBeef.com or talk to your local Elanco representative about how Cydectin can benefit your strategic deworming protocol.
Related product/portfolio pages
• https://farmanimal.elanco.com/us/beef/products/cydectin-pour-on
• https://campaign.elanco.com/en-us/elanco-cydectin-injectable/
• https://farmanimal.elanco.com/us/beef
Keep Cydectin out of reach of children.
Cydectin, Elanco and the diagonal bar logo are trademarks of Elanco or its affiliates. Other product names are trademarks of their respective owners. ©2024 Elanco or its affiliates. PM-US-24-1034
References
1 Lifschitz A, Sallovitz J, Imperiale F, et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of four ivermectin generic formulations in calves. Vet Parasitol. 2004:119(2-3):247-57.
2 Yazwinski TA, Tucker CA, Miles DG, et al. Evaluation of generic injectable ivermectin for control of nematodiasis in feedlot heifers. Bov Pract. 46(1):60-65.
3 Williams JC, et al. A comparison of persistent anthelmintic efficacy of topical formulations of doramectin, ivermectin, eprinomectin and moxidectin against naturally acquired nematode infections of beef calves. Vet Parasitol. 1999:85:277-288.
