There is public pressure to reduce antimicrobial use in livestock production. Metaphylaxis usage raises special concern as it is given to a whole group of animals. The objective of this research was to determine the difference in cattle productivity and health (average daily gain, death loss, etc.) between cattle given metaphylaxis and those to which it was not given. Observational data were provided by a commercial feedlot in the Southern Great Plains region of the U.S.A. with an operating capacity >50,000 head. Cattle that received metaphylaxis treatment had substantially poorer health outcomes than those that did not. Cattle were more likely to have been given metaphylaxis treatment if they had a lower weight, were from a sale barn, or had been shipped long distances. Propensity score matching was used in an attempt to estimate the effect of metaphylaxis treatment on feedlot cattle. Propensity score matching was unable to overcome the endogeneity issues present in the data (endogeneity results from the animals being more likely to benefit from the treatment being the ones who received it). The dataset had information on cattle weight, state of purchase, and whether or not the cattle were from a sale barn, and so the feedlot must have based the treatment decision on information that was not recorded and therefore not included in the dataset. As an observational study, there are limitations in addition to data limitations, such as the possibility that the feedlot studied might not be representative of others. Even though the effect of metaphylaxis was not identified, the fact that it was unidentifiable supports the argument that the feedlot did treat the animals most likely to need metaphylaxis treatment. This should temper some fear of metaphylaxis treatment being overused and of antimicrobials being given needlessly.
Keywords: antibiotics; antimicrobial; bovine respiratory disease; economics of metaphylaxis; propensity score matching.
Copyright © 2022 Maples, Brorsen, Peel and Hicks.