No abstract

No abstract

Intra-and interspecific contact rates of 12 adult (five females, seven males) raccoons (Procyon lotor) were recorded while these animals fed at a rural garbage dump 40 km north of Kingston, Ontario, Canada from 15 June to 5 September 1995. While raccoons were being observed, they bit, and were bitten, by their conspecifics an average of 0.99 (Ϯ0.21) and 1.28 (Ϯ0.21) times per hour, respectively, while feeding. Based on mean nightly contact rates (which included time when raccoons were not observed), raccoons bit one of their conspecifics once every 3 nights while feeding. The mean rate of bites made and received per hour for males was not significantly different from lactating females. There was no detectable difference between the mean rate of bites made and received per hour for raccoons which regularly versus occasionally fed at the dump. No interspecific contacts were observed, though raccoons and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) often fed at the dump concurrently. The contact rates in this study are the first to be calculated for raccoons directly from field data and will be useful as a point of reference for modeling rabies spread in raccoons in areas with similar site characteristics.

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of antibiotics used to control bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef cattle on feedlots. The information sources for the review were: MEDLINE®, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE® Daily, AGRICOLA, Epub Ahead of Print, Cambridge Agricultural and Biological Index, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science, the Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, World Buiatrics Conference, and the United States Food and Drug Administration Freedom of Information New Animal Drug Applications summaries. The eligible population was weaned beef cattle raised in intensive systems. The interventions of interest were injectable antibiotics used at the time the cattle arrived at the feedlot. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of BRD within 45 days of arrival at the feedlot. The network meta-analysis included data from 46 studies and 167 study arms identified in the review. The results suggest that macrolides are the most effective antibiotics for the reduction of BRD incidence. Injectable oxytetracycline effectively controlled BRD compared with no antibiotics; however, it was less effective than macrolide treatment. Because oxytetracycline is already commonly used to prevent, control, and treat BRD in groups of feedlot cattle, the use of injectable oxytetracycline for BRD control might have advantages from an antibiotic stewardship perspective.

Vaccination against putative causal organisms is a frequently used and preferred approach to controlling bovine respiratory disease complex (BRD) because it reduces the need for antibiotic use. Because approximately 90% of feedlots use and 90% of beef cattle receive vaccines in the USA, information about their comparative efficacy would be useful for selecting a vaccine. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies assessing the comparative efficacy of vaccines to control BRD when administered to beef cattle at or near their arrival at the feedlot. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE

No abstract

No abstract

The goal of the REFLECT Statement (Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials in livEstoCk and food safeTy) (published in 2010) was to provide the veterinary research community with reporting guidelines tailored for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of REFLECT Statement reporting of items 1-19 in controlled trials published in journals between 1970 and 2017 examining the comparative efficacy of FDA-registered antimicrobials against naturally acquired BRD (bovine respiratory disease) in weaned beef calves in Canada or the USA, and to compare the prevalence of reporting before and after 2010, when REFLECT was published. We divided REFLECT Statement, items 3, 5, 10, and 11 into subitems, because each dealt with multiple elements requiring separate assessment. As a result, 28 different items or subitems were evaluated independently. We searched MEDLINE and CABI (CAB Abstracts and Global Health) (Web of Science™) in April 2017 and screened 2327 references. Two reviewers independently assessed the reporting of each item and subitem. Ninety-five references were eligible for the study. The reporting of the REFLECT items showed a point estimate for the prevalence ratio >1 (i.e. a higher proportion of studies published post-2010 reported this item compared to studies published pre-2010), apart from items 10.3, i.e., item 10, subitem 3 (who assigned study units to the interventions), 13 (the flow of study units through the study), 16 (number of study units in analysis), 18 (multiplicity), and 19 (adverse effects). Fifty-three (79%) of 67 studies published before 2010 and all 28 (100%) papers published after 2010 reported using a random allocation method in either the title, abstract, or methods (Prevalence ratio = 1.25; 95% CI (1.09,1.43)). However, 8 studies published prior to 2010 and 7 studies published post-2010 reported the term "systematic randomization" or variations of this term (which is not true randomization) to describe the allocation procedure. Fifty-five percent (37/67) of studies published pre-2010 reported blinding status (blinded/not blinded) of outcome assessors, compared to 24/28 (86%) of studies published post-2010 (Prevalence ratio = 1.5, 95% CI (1.19, 2.02)). The reporting of recommended items in journal articles in this body of work is generally improving; however, there is also evidence of confusion about what constitutes a random allocation procedure, and this suggests an educational need. As this study is observational, this precludes concluding that the publication of the REFLECT Statement was the cause of this trend.