Advertisement
HEALTH: Original Research| Volume 39, ISSUE 1, P1-13, February 2023

Download started.

Ok

Modified-live versus inactivated respiratory viral vaccines for revaccinating beef calves at weaning

DOI:https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2022-02332
Modified-live versus inactivated respiratory viral vaccines for revaccinating beef calves at weaning
Previous ArticleCall for articles
Next ArticleInvited Review: Examples and opportunities for artificial intelligence (AI) in dairy farms*
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      Our objective was to evaluate bovine respiratory disease (BRD) vaccine types [modified-live (MLV) versus inactivated (INA) multivalent respiratory viral vaccines] at weaning on animal performance, morbidity, bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) neutralizing antibody titer responses, and acute-phase proteins (APP) during backgrounding in calves that previously had received a primer MLV vaccination at 2 to 4 mo of age.

      Materials and Methods

      Beef calves that had previously been vaccinated with MLV at 2 to 4 mo of age were transported to the Oklahoma State University Willard Sparks Beef Research Center from 2 herds with known health and vaccination history (block 1, n = 194, initial BW = 233 ± 32.7 kg; block 2, n = 212, BW = 184 ± 43.5 kg) at weaning. Calves were administered either MLV or INA at the receiving facility and again on d 28 after arrival. Arrival BW was used to distribute steer and heifer calves into pens equally; thus, this experiment used a split-plot experimental design with vaccine treatment in the main plot and calf sex in the split plot. Analysis of BVDV serum neutralization panel and APP were based on pen composite samples from 6 representative calves in each pen.

      Results and Discussion

      Antibody titers for BVDV 1a were greater (P < 0.01) for INA than for MLV. In comparison, BVDV 1b antibody titers were greater for INA on d 14 and 28 but did not differ from MLV on d 42 or 56. Dry matter intake was greater (P < 0.01) for MLV than INA from d 28 to 42 following booster vaccination and from d 0 to 56. This resulted in a greater (P < 0.01) ADG from d 0 to 56 for MLV. Gain:feed, morbidity, or APP concentrations did not differ (P ≥ 0.22) between treatments.

      Implications and Applications

      Revaccination with an INA at weaning provided a more robust BVDV vaccination response compared with MLV following a preweaning priming MLV vaccination at 2 to 4 mo of age.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Alsemgeest S.P.M.
        • Kalsbeek H.C.
        • Wensing T.
        • Koeman J.P.
        • van Ederen A.M.
        • Gruys E.
        Concentrations of serum amyloida (SAA) and haptoglobin (HP) as parameters of inflammatory diseases in cattle.
        Vet. Q. 1994; 16: 21-23
        https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1994.9694410
        • Arthington J.D.
        • Cooke R.F.
        • Maddock T.D.
        • Araujo D.B.
        • Moriel P.
        • DiLorenzo N.
        • Lamb G.C.
        Effects of vaccination on the acute-phase protein response and measures of performance in growing beef calves.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2013; 91: 1831-1837
        https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5724
        • Beck P.
        • Horn G.W.
        • Kegley E.
        • Powell J.
        • Rivera D.
        Invited: Stocker management: Impacts on health and subsequent feedlot performance.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2019; 97 (Abstr.): 23-24
        https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz053.052
        • BQA (Beef Quality Assurance)
        Beef Quality Assurance National Manual.
        National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
        https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/bqa_manual_final.pdf
        Date: 2019
        Date accessed: November 30, 2021
        • Brooks K.R.
        • Raper K.C.
        • Ward C.E.
        • Holland B.P.
        • Krehbiel C.R.
        • Step D.L.
        Economic effects of bovine respiratory disease on feedlot cattle during backgrounding and finishing phases.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2011; 27: 195-203
        https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30474-5
        • Bryant T.C.
        • Rogers K.C.
        • Stone N.D.
        • Miles D.G.
        Effect of viral respiratory vaccine treatment on performance, health and carcass traits of auction-origin feeder steers.
        Bov. Pract. 2008; 42: 98-103
        • Chamorro M.F.
        • Palomares R.A.
        Bovine respiratory disease vaccination against viral pathogens: Modified-live versus inactivated antigen vaccines, intranasal versus parenteral, what is the evidence?.
        Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2020; 36: 461-472
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2020.03.006
        • Crook T.S.
        • Beck P.A.
        • Gadberry M.S.
        • Sims M.B.
        • Stewart C.B.
        • Shelton C.
        • Koltes J.
        • Kegley E.B.
        • Powell J.
        • McLean D.
        • Chapman J.
        Influence of an immune modulatory feed supplement on performance and immune function of beef cows and calves preweaning.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2020; 98skaa073
        https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa073
        • Duff G.C.
        • Malcolm-Callis K.J.
        • Walker D.A.
        • Wiseman M.W.
        Effects of intranasal versus intramuscular modified-live vaccines and vaccine timing on health and performance by newly received beef cattle.
        Am. Assoc. Bovine Pract. 2000; 34: 66-72
        • Edwards T.A.
        Control methods for bovine respiratory disease for feedlot cattle.
        Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2010; 26: 273-284
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2010.03.005
        • Hudson R.E.
        • Tomczak D.J.
        • Kaufman E.L.
        • Adams A.M.
        • Carroll J.A.
        • Broadway P.R.
        • Ballou M.A.
        • Richeson J.T.
        Immune responses and performance are influenced by respiratory vaccine antigen type and stress in beef calves.
        Animals (Basel). 2020; 10: 1119
        https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10071119
        • Joshi V.
        • Gupta V.K.
        • Bhanuprakash A.G.
        • Mandal R.S.K.
        • Dimri U.
        • Ajith Y.
        Haptoglobin and serum amyloid A as putative biomarker candidates of naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease in dairy calves.
        Microb. Pathog. 2018; 116: 33-37
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.01.001
        • Kirkpatrick J.G.
        • Step D.L.
        • Payton M.E.
        • Richards J.B.
        • McTague L.F.
        • Saliki J.T.
        • Confer A.W.
        • Cook B.J.
        • Ingram S.H.
        • Wright J.C.
        Effect of age at the time of vaccination on antibody titers and feedlot performance in beef calves.
        J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008; 233: 136-142
        https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.233.1.136
        • Loneragan G.H.
        • Thomson D.U.
        • Montgomery D.L.
        • Mason G.L.
        • Larson R.L.
        Prevalence, outcome, and health consequences associated with persistent infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus in feedlot cattle.
        J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005; 226: 595-601
        https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.226.595
        • Mulenga B.P.
        • Raper K.C.
        • Peel D.S.
        A market basket analysis of beef calf management practice adoption.
        J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2020; 46: 214-227
        https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.304774
        • O’Connor A.
        • Martin S.W.
        • Nagy E.
        • Menzies P.
        • Harland R.
        The relationship between the occurrence of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease and titer changes to bovine coronavirus and bovine viral diarrhea virus in 3 Ontario feedlots.
        Can. J. Vet. Res. 2001; 65: 137-142
        • Parker W.R.
        • Winder J.A.
        • Galyean M.L.
        • Cravens R.L.
        Effects of vaccination at branding on serum antibody titers to viral agents of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in newly weaned New Mexico calves.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1993; 71 (Abstr.): 121
        • Peel D.S.
        Economic considerations of enhanced BRD control.
        Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2020; 21: 139-142
        https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252320000304
        • Richeson J.T.
        • Beck P.A.
        • Gadberry M.S.
        • Gunter S.A.
        • Hess T.W.
        • Hubbell III, D.S.
        • Jones C.
        Effects of on-arrival versus delayed modified-live virus vaccination on health, performance, and serum infectious bovine rhinotracheitis titers of newly-received beef calves.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2008; 86: 999-1005
        https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0593
        • Richeson J.T.
        • Beck P.A.
        • Poe K.
        • Gadberry M.S.
        • Hess T.W.
        • Hubbell D.
        Effects of modified-live respiratory virus vaccine administration and timing in high-risk beef stocker calves.
        Bov. Pract. 2015; 49: 37-42
        • Richeson J.T.
        • Carroll J.A.
        • Burdick Sanchez N.C.
        • May N.D.
        • Hughes H.D.
        • Roberts S.L.
        • Broadway P.R.
        • Sharon K.P.
        • Ballou M.A.
        Dexamethosone treatment differentially alters viral shedding and the antibody and acute phase protein response after multivalent respiratory vaccination in beef steers.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2016; 94: 3501-3509
        https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0572
        • Richeson J.T.
        • Falkner T.R.
        Bovine respiratory disease vaccination what is the effect of timing?.
        Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2020; 36: 473-485
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2020.03.013
        • Richeson J.T.
        • Kegley E.B.
        • Gadberry M.S.
        • Beck P.A.
        • Powell J.G.
        • Jones C.A.
        Effects of on-arrival versus delayed clostridial or modified live respiratory vaccinations on health, performance, bovine viral diarrhea virus type I titers, and stress and immune measures of newly received beef calves.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2009; 87: 2409-2418
        https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1484
        • Robe J.
        • Beck P.A.
        • Zook D.
        • New M.
        • Ward E.
        • Freking B.
        Producer adoption of preconditioning strategies in the Oklahoma Quality Beef Network.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2020; 98: 5-6
        https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz397.012
        • Rodrigues M.C.
        • Cooke R.F.
        • Marques R.S.
        • Cappellozza B.I.
        • Arispe S.A.
        • Keisler D.H.
        • Bohnert D.W.
        Effect of vaccination against respiratory pathogens on feed intake, metabolic, and inflammatory responses in beef heifers.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2015; 93: 4443-4452
        https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9277
        • Smith R.A.
        Factors influencing bovine respiratory disease in stocker and feeder cattle.
        in: Proc. 43rd Annu. Conf. Am. Assoc. Bovine Pract. 2010: 10-15
        • Step D.L.
        • Krehbiel C.R.
        • Burciaga-Robles L.O.
        • Holland B.P.
        • Fulton R.W.
        • Confer A.W.
        • Bechtol D.T.
        • Brister D.L.
        • Hutcheson J.P.
        • Newcomb H.L.
        Comparison of single vaccination versus revaccination with a modified-live virus vaccine containing bovine herpesvirus-1, bovine viral diarrhea virus (types 1a and 2a), parainfluenza type 3 virus, and bovine respiratory syncytial virus in the prevention of bovine respiratory disease in cattle.
        J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2009; 235: 580-587
        https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.235.5.580
        • Stilwell G.
        • Matos M.
        • Carolino N.
        • Lima M.S.
        Effect of a quadrivalent vaccine against respiratory virus on the incidence of respiratory disease in weaned beef calves.
        Prev. Vet. Med. 2008; 85: 151-157
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.02.002
        • Takahashi E.
        • Uzuka Y.
        • Tanabe S.
        • Satoh M.
        • Furuoka H.
        Serum amyloid A and haptoglobin levels in bovine amyloidosis.
        J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2007; 69: 321-323
        https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.69.321
        • Taylor J.D.
        • Fulton R.W.
        • Lehenbauer T.W.
        • Step D.L.
        • Confer A.W.
        The epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease: What evidence for predisposing factors?.
        Can. Vet. J. 2010; 51: 1095-1102
        • Theurer M.E.
        • Johnson M.D.
        • Fox T.
        • McCarty T.M.
        • McCollum R.M.
        • Jones T.M.
        • Alkire D.O.
        Bovine respiratory disease during the mid-portion of the feeding period: Observations of frequency, timing, and population from the field.
        Appl. Anim. Sci. 2021; 37: 52-58
        https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-02089
        • Theurer M.E.
        • Johnson M.D.
        • Fox T.
        • McCarty T.M.
        • McCollum R.M.
        • Jones T.M.
        • Alkire D.O.
        Bovine respiratory disease during the mid-portion of the feeding period: Observations from vaccination history, viral and bacterial prevalence, and rate of gain in feedlot cattle.
        Appl. Anim. Sci. 2021; 37: 59-67
        https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-02090
        • Theurer M.E.
        • Larson R.L.
        • White B.J.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of commercially available vaccines against bovine herpesvirus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, bovine respiratory syncytial virus, and parainfluenza type 3 virus for mitigation of bovine respiratory disease complex in cattle.
        J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2015; 246: 126-142
        https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.246.1.126
        • USDA NAHMS (National Animal Health Monitoring System)
        Feedlot 2011. Part IV: Health and Health Management on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or more Head.
        USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service–Veterinary Services–Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health–National Animal Health Monitoring System, 2013
        • Van Donkersgoed J.
        • Guenther C.
        • Evans B.N.
        • Potter A.A.
        • Harland R.J.
        Effects of various vaccination protocols on passive and active immunity to Pasteurella haemolytica and Haemophilus somnus in beef calves.
        Can. Vet. J. 1995; 36: 424-429
        • West K.
        • Petrie L.
        • Konoby C.
        • Haines D.M.
        • Cortese V.
        • Ellis J.A.
        The efficacy of modified-live bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in experimentally infected calves.
        Vaccine. 1999; 18: 907-919
        https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-410X(99)00324-2
        • Wilson B.K.
        • Step D.L.
        • Maxwell C.L.
        • Gifford C.A.
        • Richards C.J.
        • Krehbiel C.R.
        Effect of bovine respiratory disease curing the receiving period on steer finishing performance, efficiency, carcass characteristics, and lung scores.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2017; 33: 24-36
        https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2016-01554
        • Wilson B.K.
        • Step D.L.
        • Maxwell C.L.
        • Wagner J.J.
        • Richards C.J.
        • Krehbiel C.R.
        Evaluation of multiple ancillary therapies used in combination with an antimicrobial in newly received high-risk calves treated for bovine respiratory disease.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2015; 93: 3661-3674
        https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9023

      Article info

      Footnotes

      ☆One author is employed by Elanco Animal Health, which sponsored this research. The other authors have not declared any conflicts of interest.

      ☆☆This research is a contribution from the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station and Elanco Animal Health. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing scientific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the authors or the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station.

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2022-02332

      Copyright

      © 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the Cookie Preference Center for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.


      RELX