Bovine Respiratory Disease: Preconditioning Calves

BOVINE RESPIRATORY DISEASE:
PRECONDITIONING CALVES
Fact Sheet No. 8.023
C. Shelley and C. Matney*
One of the most common and costly
cattle diseases in North America is bovine
respiratory disease (BRD; Griffin 1997 and
Taylor et al. 2010). Due to its widespread
impacts, research efforts to understand
and reduce BRD began in the late 1800’s.
Despite over a hundred years of research,
BRD still continues to harm the cattle industry, especially feedlot and stocker cattle.
Contraction of BRD can cause significant
rates of mortality or decreases in average daily weight gain, hot carcass weight,
dressing percentage, actual carcass value,
fat level, marbling and yield grade (Holland et al. 2010). It has been estimated that
approximately 75% of morbidity and 50
to 70% of mortality at feedlots are caused
by BRD (Edwards 1996; Galyean et al. 1999
and Loneragan et al. 2001). BRD is very
expensive to treat. Holland and colleagues
(2010) found that a one-time treatment
for calves with BRD yielded a net return
$40.64 less per head than for non-treated
calves. Calves treated twice yielded $58.35
less, and those treated three or more times
netted an average of $291.93 less than
non-treated calves. In 2001, Chirase and
Greene estimated that the feedlot industry
was losing $800 million to $900 million
annually in economic losses from BRD due
to mortality, reduced feed efficiency, and
treatment costs. Due to the high cost of
treatment, much of the research occurring today is focused on preventing BRD
through preconditioning or metapahylaxis
(treatment of an entire group of calves with
an antibiotic upon arrival to a buyer). While
metaphylaxis is an opportunity to control
BRD for operators receiving cattle, preconditioning is an opportunity for producers
to improve the health of calves before they
exchange hands.
Over the last two decades, preconditioning has been gaining in popularity as a
*C. Shelley, Livestock agent, Golden Plains Area; C.
Matney, former range specialist, NE Colorado. 4/2016

Livestock Series| Health
means to increase feeder calf health (USDA
2000) with half of feeder calf producers
retaining ownership beyond weaning
(NAHMS 2007). Preconditioning is designed to reduce mortality and decrease
sickness in calves. One strategy for preconditioning calves is to increase their weight.
Recent research shows that calf weight is
linked to health, with heavier calves being
less likely to get sick upon entrance to the
feedlot (Sanderson et al. 2008). Based on
this research and benefits already observed
by feeders, many calf-feeding operations
are now willing to invest more in preconditioned calves (King et al. 2006).
Several programs are available to producers who are considering adopting preconditioning. Most plans include a health
plan, weaning period, and weight gain
period immediately following weaning.
Vaccination plans used, weaning methods,
and criteria for feeding after weaning vary
greatly between programs. There is no perfect one-size-fits-all precondition program.
There are pros and cons to each program,
depending on the situation and scale of the
calving operation. In fact, cattle producers are fully capable of designing a unique
or adapted preconditioning program
for their own operation. However, some
programs are widely known and bring with
them a reputation that cattle buyers may
recognize. Whether producers choose a
well-known program or create their own,
it is important to focus on building their
reputation as a cattle producer that raises
healthy, productive calves.
There are some increased risks for
producers investing in preconditioning
their calves. The main consideration is that
producers are responsible for the health of
their calves after weaning. Although calves
may not have the added stress of transportation, comingling, or novel feed and environment; weaning can still be a stressful
time. Vaccinating calves is one of the most
critical tools in disease prevention after

Quick Facts
• Death and disease
are mitigated through
preconditioning when
compared to weaning on the
truck.
• Preconditioning programs
consist of a health plan, onsite weaning and a weight
gain period.
• Preconditioning may not
always have financial merit.
An economic analysis with
a partial budget will help
producers make an informed
decision.

©Colorado State University
Extension. 4/2016.
extension.colostate.edu

weaning, and it is one of the major tools
determining whether preconditioning
will be a success. Producers should work
with their local veterinarian to develop
a health plan and treatment regimen
during preconditioning, regardless of the
popularity of the initial preconditioning
program selected.
Most preconditioning programs
require 45 or more days of feeding calves
after weaning. Producers should choose
their preconditioning program with the
buyer in mind. For instance, it makes
sense to adapt calves to feed bunks
and troughs if they are destined for the
feedlot. Alternatively, if going to a stocker
operation, calves can be fed much more
economically on grass hay or pasture after
weaning. Bottom line: knowing the end
buyer of the cattle will allow producers to
more effectively manage and market their
calves.
Producers should stay informed of current agricultural and commodity market
data and predictions. Sale prices received
at weaning may change by the time the
preconditioning programs are complete.
Additionally, when beef prices are high,
there may be a “price slide” that is seen
between different weight categories of
animals. For example, a calf weighing 550
pounds, and bringing a price of $285/cwt
may only bring $240/cwt when weighing 700 pounds. In this case, the overall
value of the heavier calf only increased
by $112.50 even though it weighed
150 pounds more than the smaller calf.
Because of these potential situations,
producers should always be mindful of
whether or not preconditioning is the
most economical option.
In all, preconditioning has the potential to increase overall calf health, improve
calf quality, and increase sale margins, but
preconditioning may not be an effective
management tool every year (Avent et
al. 2004). Markets, consumer preference,
and feed availability can vary year to year.
An economic analysis through a partial
budget can be completed relatively easily
and help producers make informed decision whether or not to choose preconditioning. For help with a partial budget or
for any other preconditioning questions,
livestock producers should consider contacting their local Extension office.

References
Avent, R.K.; C.E. Ward; and D.L. Lalman.
2004. Market Valuation of Preconditioning
Feeder Calves. Journal of Agricultural and
Applied Economics 36:173-183.
Chirase, N.K. and L.W. Greene. 2001.
Dietary Zinc and Manganese Sources
Administered from the Fetal Stage Onwards Affect Immune Response of Transit
Stressed and Virus Infected Offspring
Steer Calves. Animal Feed Science and
Technology 93:217-228.
Edwards, A.J. 1996. Respiratory Diseases of Feedlot Cattle in the Central USA.
Bovine Practitioner 30:5-7.
Galyean, M.L.; L.J. Perino and G.C. Duff.
1999. Interaction of Cattle Health/Immunity and Nutrition. Journal of Animal
Science 77:1120-1134.
Griffin, D. 1997. Economic impact associated with respiratory disease in beef
cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America:
Food Animal Practice 13:367–377.
Holland, B.P.; L.O. Burciaga-Robles; D.L.
VanOverbeke; J.N. Shook; D.L. Step; C.J.
Richards; and C.R. Krehbiel. 2010. Effect
of bovine respiratory disease during
preconditioning on subsequent feedlot
performance, carcass characteristics, and
beef attributes. Journal of Animal Science
7:2486-99.
King, M.E.; M.D. Salmon; T.E. Wittum,
K.G. Odde; J.T. Seeger; D.M. Grotelueschen; G.M. Rogers; and G.A. Quakenbush.
2006. Effect of certified health programs
on the sale price of beef calves marketed
through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. Journal of
American Veterinary Medical Association
229:1389-1400.

Loneragan, G.H.; D.A. Dargatz, P.S.
Morley, and M.A. Smith. 2001. Trends in
Mortality Ratios Among Cattle in US Feedlots. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 219:1122-1127.
NAHMS. 2008. Reference of 2007-2008
Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices.
National Animal Health Monitoring
System. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. United States Department of
Agriculture.
Sanderson, M.W.; D.A. Dargatz; and
B.A. Wagner. 2008. Risk factors for initial
respiratory disease in United States’ feedlots based on producer-collected daily
morbidity counts. Canadian Veterinary
Journal 49(4):373-378.
Seeger, J.T.; M.E. King; D.M. Grotelueschen; G.M. Rogers; and G.S. Stokka.
2011. Effect of management, marketing,
and certified health programs on the
sale price of beef calves sold through a
livestock video auction service from 1995
through 2009. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 239:451-466.
Taylor, J.D.; R.W. Fulton; T.W. Lehenbauer; D.L. Step; and A.W. Confer. 2010.
The epidemiology of bovine respiratory
disease: what is the evidence for preventive measures? Canadian Veterinary
Journal 51(12):1351-9.
USDA. 2000. NAHMS Veterinary services information sheet: Attitudes towards
pre-arrival processing in U.S. feedlots.
National Animal Health Monitoring System (HAHMS). Fort Collins, Colorado. No.
N340.1100.
Colorado State University, U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating.
CSU Extension programs are available to all without
discrimination. No endorsement of products mentioned
is intended nor is criticism implied of products not
mentioned.