KSU experts discuss importance of balance when making cattle health decisions
During the Jan. 23 episode of the Kansas State University (KSU) Beef Cattle Institute (BCI) Cattle Chat podcast, BCI Director Dr. Brad White, KSU Professor of Production Medicine Dr. Bob Larson and Clinical Assistant Professor of Beef Production Medicine Dr. Todd Gunderson tackle one of the most persistent challenges in cattle health management – knowing when to treat, when to wait and how to make better decisions regarding treatment protocols.
From diagnosing sick calves, sticking with treatment protocols and understanding antimicrobial resistance, the discussion highlights a central theme – good cattle health decisions require balance.
Treating early versus treating precisely
To begin, White poses the question of whether cattle producers are better off treating diseases early when signs are mild or waiting until an animal is visibly, undeniably sick.
While Larson and Gunderson attempt to address the question, they ultimately agree there is no perfect answer – only tradeoffs.
They explain treating early may help prevent disease from progressing to a point where recovery is unlikely, but it also increases the chance of treating animals which may recover on their own.
On the other hand, waiting for certainty improves precision but risks allowing disease to advance beyond a point where treatment can reverse the damage.
Larson emphasizes the balance between sensitivity and specificity.
He notes a highly-sensitive approach to cattle health management may catch more sick ones, but it results in the treatment of animals that may not need it. On the other hand, a highly-specific approach avoids unnecessary treatment but inevitably misses some animals which may have benefited from earlier intervention.
Both approaches have consequences, and Larson says the right answer ultimately depends on the specific situation.
Making ongoing decisions
While it’s up to a producer to make the ultimate call on when to treat illness, the panel says one key takeaway is disease decisions don’t have to be permanent. Instead of locking in on a choice, producers can treat their decision-making as an ongoing process.
“Somewhere along the way, someone taught me tomorrow is a great diagnostic test, and what this means is the difference in the animal today versus in 12 to 24 hours is a really important piece of information,” Larson states.
He goes on to explain improvement may signal intervention isn’t needed, while rapid decline indicates a need for more aggressive action.
“The ability to reassess and change course is often more valuable than making the perfect initial call,” he continues.
Additionally, the experts underscore the fact cattle don’t normally exist in isolation, so decisions regarding individual animals should also be informed by what is happening within the herd as a whole.
For example, Gunderson explains if a producer has seen multiple sick cattle over the past few days, the threshold for intervention should be lower, while in a healthy herd with no recent illness, a mild sign may not warrant immediate treatment.
Gunderson also says producers are often better at understanding herd-level patterns than they realize. Group behavior, weather conditions and recent health history all shape the likelihood a subtle sign is meaningful.
“Expectations matter. When disease pressure is high, small changes carry more weight. When it’s low, patience may be the better choice,” he states.
Rigid protocol versus flexibility
The conversation then turned to treatment protocols, in which all of the experts agree having a plan in place is essential, although they don’t necessarily see eye to eye on how strictly this plan must be followed.
“It’s important to have protocols because it’s important to have a plan, but I think those plans need to account for the possibility of things going sideways,” Gunderson says. “I think you have to be flexible in how you apply those protocols, and if things are going a certain way, be able to modify your approach accordingly.”
Larson, however, ex-
plains protocols provide consistency, allow for meaningful evaluation and prevent knee-jerk reactions driven by emotion rather than data. Without consistency, he believes it becomes difficult to assess treatment success.
“If I’m varying protocol for some cases and not others, it’s going to become hard for me to know when to change my base protocol,” he says. “I’m worried about jumping off of protocol too quickly and not having a way to evaluate over time.”
“I think occasional variation from protocol is fine, but for the most part producers should stick with their plan and their metrics,” he adds.
Upon further discussion, the two landed on a consensus that somewhere in the middle is likely best – protocols should be flexible enough to adapt to most cases, but producers should define clear criteria for when deviation is warranted and deviations should be rare, intentional and documented.
Antimicrobial resistance
The episode closes with a discussion on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly in relation to bovine respiratory disease.
The experts largely agree AMR is often blamed for treatment failure, but it is rarely the primary cause.
They explain, while AMR is real and must be taken seriously, respiratory disease in cattle is a syndrome, not a single pathogen disease. Instead, multiple viruses, bacteria, environmental stressors and animal factors contribute to the disease’s development and progression.
In many cases, Larson and Gunderson agree treatment failure is more closely tied to delayed intervention, severe pathology or environmental challenges than AMR alone.
“Syndromes are a lot more complicated,” says Larson. “When we say ‘diagnose the problem,’ we have to understand the entire system, not just identify a pathogen.”
Across all of the topics discussed, two messages rang clear – prevention remains the most effective tool in cattle health management and good decisions aren’t about certainty. They’re about balancing the best information available and being willing to adapt as conditions evolve.
Hannah Bugas is the managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.net.
