Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) continues to be a leading cause of economic loss, hampered animal welfare, and intensive antimicrobial use in cattle operations worldwide. Reduction of antimicrobial use is hindered because it is still unclear which clinical signs are best monitored to reliably detect pneumonia. Also, these clinical signs may vary according to age and between breeds. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to identify clinical signs associated with ultrasound-confirmed pneumonia (lung consolidation ≥1 cm depth) pre-and postweaning in different production types (dairy, beef, and veal) and breeds. A total of 956 calves (70% Holstein-Friesian dairy and 30% Belgian Blue beef) from 84 herds were clinically examined using 24 parameters, scored using the Wisconsin and California BRD clinical scoring systems and subjected to thoracic ultrasonography. Of the calves, 42.8% and 19.5% had a lung consolidation ≥1 cm and ≥3 cm, respectively. Cough, both spontaneous and induced, was the only and best-performing clinical sign statistically associated with lung consolidation in all production types. Fever (rectal temperature ≥39.4°C) was the second most promising factor, being significant in beef and veal calves but not in dairy calves. Postweaning, none of the clinical signs studied were statistically associated with pneumonia, with the exception of cough in dairy calves. Spontaneous or induced cough as a single clinical sign outperformed any combination of clinical signs, including the Wisconsin and California respiratory disease scoring systems, but sensitivity remained low. This information can be useful to select appropriate clinical signs for continuous monitoring in precision livestock applications, targeted to a given breed and age. As a cross-sectional measurement, diagnostic accuracy of spontaneous cough (accuracy = 65.1%, sensitivity = 37.4%, specificity = 85.7%) is too low to be used as a criterion to select animals with pneumonia for antimicrobial treatment. At the group level, cough monitoring holds potential as an early warning sign, after which lung ultrasonography should follow.

Background Sepsis is a life‐threatening disease for which critically important antimicrobials (CIA) frequently are used. Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for sepsis and critically ill calves are largely lacking. Objectives Identify factors associated with mortality in critically ill calves and describe bacteria obtained from blood cultures of critically ill calves with sepsis and their antimicrobial resistance. Animals Two‐hundred thirty critically ill calves, mainly Belgian Blue beef cattle. Methods Retrospective cohort study. Logistic regression, survival analysis, and decision tree analysis were used to determine factors associated with mortality. Results Of the critically ill calves, 34.3% had sepsis and 61.3% died. The final survival model indicated that calves with sepsis (hazard risk [HR]: 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0‐2.5; P = .05), abnormal behavior (HR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.3‐4.0; P = .005), and hypothermia (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72‐0.95; P = .01) had a significantly higher mortality risk. In a second survival model, hypothermia (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78‐0.96; P = .004) and hypoglycemia (HR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.5‐3.3; P < .001) were risk factors for mortality. Decision tree analysis emphasized the importance of behavior, hypochloremia, hypoglycemia, hyperkalemia, and lung ultrasonography for mortality risk. Escherichia coli (30.6%) was most frequently isolated from blood cultures, of which 90.9% were multidrug resistant. Inappropriate use of antimicrobials was frequent for penicillin, amoxicillin, and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, but less for CIA. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Many critically ill calves have sepsis, which increases mortality risk. Bacteria involved are often resistant to first‐intention antimicrobials but less resistant to CIA. The other identified risk factors for mortality can support therapeutic decision‐making.

Retained fetal membranes (RFM) is a frequent postpartum disorder in cattle causing considerable economic losses, and a common indication for antibiotic (AB) administration. There is controversy with regard to the treatment of RFM, and scientific recommendations are often in conflict with current legislation on AB use and practical routines in the field.The aim of this study was to assess the therapeutic approaches of RFM by Belgian rural veterinarians. A digital survey was sent to 468 Belgian veterinarians; 149 complete questionnaires (Wallonia: 78; Flanders: 71) were obtained. Survey questions captured socio-demographic characteristics, case definition, therapeutic approaches and treatment options for RFM. Questions on treatment were duplicated for dairy and beef cattle.When confronted with dairy cows suffering from RFM without fever, 35.6 % of vets do not treat with AB, while the majority administers AB, either intrauterine (47.6 %), systemically (10.7 %) or both (6.1 %). Dairy cows with RFM and fever receive a systemic (33.5 %), intrauterine (2.7 %) or combined (61.8 %) AB treatment. For a beef cow with RFM without fever, 21.5 % of vets prefer no AB treatment, while others prefer an intrauterine (24.2 %), systemic (24.8 %), combined (29.5 %) AB treatment. Beef cows with RFM and fever receive AB from the large majority of vets, by systemic (34.9 %) or combined (56.3 %) administration. In case of a parenteral treatment, benzylpenicillin, amoxicillin and ampicillin are by far the most frequently used molecules; only a minority of vets use cephalosporins. Manual placental removal is attempted by 93.9 % of the respondents.These results demonstrate that there is room for improvement when considering the treatment protocols of RFM. Many veterinarians use AB in RFM cows not presenting symptoms of general illness, or administer intrauterine AB in cows with or without clinical signs of illness. Concerning the molecules of choice, practical routines are largely in line with national AB recommendations. Beef cows suffering from RFM are treated more rigorously than dairy cows, regardless of their rectal temperature.

No abstract

No abstract

Background To what extent veterinarians active in the dairy or beef sector follow the antimicrobial therapy guidelines made available in different European countries for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) outbreaks, and whether differences in therapeutic or preventive preferences for BRD management exist, is currently unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this cross‐sectional study were to compare vaccination coverage and primary antimicrobial and anti‐inflammatory treatment on dairy, beef and mixed‐breed farms in northern Belgium, and determine their compliance with the recommendations made by the Belgian formulary. Methods Information on antimicrobial and anti‐inflammatory drug use and vaccination coverage from 190 BRD outbreaks in 180 herds, submitted by 101 veterinarians, was analysed. Multivariable linear probability models, adjusted for clustering at the veterinarian level, were used to determine differences between dairy and beef farms. Results Antimicrobials and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used in 93.5% and 81.7% of the BRD outbreaks, respectively. First‐line antimicrobials were used as primary treatment in only 42.3%, 50.9% and 38.6% of dairy, beef and mixed‐breed farms, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between dairy and beef farms in terms of use of long‐acting macrolides (–17.2 percentage points [pp]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –31.9, –2.5), steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (15.2 pp; CI: 0.5, 29.8) and vaccination coverage (bovine respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus type 3 [33.1 pp; Cl: 15.7–50.6] and Mannheimia haemolytica [23.1 pp; Cl: 3.4–39.8]). Limitations The herds that participated in this study were likely among the more motivated regarding BRD control. As such, the information on vaccination coverage is likely not entirely representative of herds in the study area. Interpretation is further complicated by the fact that vaccinated herds were potentially less likely to face a BRD outbreak and therefore participate in the current study. Conclusion This study reveals differences in the primary use of (N)SAIDs, type of antimicrobials used and vaccination coverage on beef and dairy farms in the study region, and also differences in the appropriateness of antimicrobial selection based on the Belgian formulary.