Evaluation of the ability of implants containing a pellet of tylosin tartrate (Component with Tylan) to prevent implant site abscesses under field conditions

Professional Animal Scientist, Sep 2002 by Anderson, P T, Botts, R L

Abstract

Five studies were conducted to evaluate the ability of growth-promoting implants containing a pellet of tylosin tartrate [Component(R)(Ivy Animal Health, Overland Park, KS) with Tylan(R) (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN)] to prevent implant site abscesses in feedlot cattle. Component(R) with Tylan(R) implants contain an additional pellet with 29 mg tylosin tartrate as a local antibacterial. Component(R) with Tylan(R) was used in heifers and steers and was tested as the initial implant, administered on arrival at the feedlot, or as a re-implant, administered later during the feeding period. Cattle implanted with Component(R) with Tylan(R) had or tended to have fewer implant site abscesses. Both incidence and severity of defects were lower; the incidence of missing implants was reduced to nearly zero with Component(R) with Tylan(R). In three studies in which performance was measured, Component(R) with Tylan(R) tended (P=0.07 in Study 2, P=0.06 in Study 4, and P=0.09 in Study 5) to improve ADG, and it improved

(P=0.03) feed conversion efficiency in the only study in which it was measured (Study 4). Differences in hot carcass weights (HCW with Component(R) with Tylan(R) (3.0, 2.7, and 2.4 kg in Study 2, 4, and 5, respectively) were also observed. Results of implant site evaluations conducted in feedyards as part of a quality assurance program confirm the research results regarding implant site abscesses.

(Key Words: Implant Site Abscess, Tylosin Tartrate, Cattle, Growth Implant.)

Introduction

Hormonal implants increase growth rate and improve feed conversion efficiency of beef cattle (1, 8, 10). In the North American cattle industry, nearly all confined fed cattle and a high proportion of non-- confined cattle receive implants. Because application of implants is a non-sterile surgical procedure conducted in a variety of conditions and with varying sanitation procedures, abscessed implant sites are common. Estimates of the incidence of implant site problems, including abscesses, are as great as 33.7% (7). Most surveys report the defect incidence at 6 to 10% of implant sites in feedyards that have quality assurance programs in place (2, 6, 7, 9). The most common implant site problem is abscessation, usually occurring at a rate of 3 to 6% of all implants checked. Research has shown that abscessed implant sites reduce performance of cattle (9) with losses estimated to $22.50 per affected head across a range of production situations (2). The same has been reported in feedlot cattle in which implant site defects were not induced by researchers but occurred during the normal course of events as is common in the industry (4). These results are contradicted by another survey in which abscessed implant sites were unrelated to some measures of growth performance (3). Implant site abscesses often result in expulsion of the implant product, rendering the animal effectively non-implanted. In the work of Berry et al. (3), missing implants resulted in significantly diminished performance.

Abscessed and missing implants occur despite strict sanitation protocols followed by feedyard personnel. Completely eliminating implant site abscesses through sanitation alone is a practical impossibility in part because bacterial contamination can be introduced into the implant site after implantation, prior to healing of the wound caused by the implanter.

In product development work, cattle that were implanted with Component(R) with Tylan(R) (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN) implants, which include an additional pellet containing 29 mg tylosin tartrate added as a local antibacterial, had fewer abscesses under research conditions (11). In these studies, a bacterial challenge was introduced at the implant site, allowing for a test of efficacy under severe conditions.

The objective of the studies reported here was to determine the efficacy of Component(R) with Tylan(R) implants in reducing implant site abscesses under field conditions, rather than the severe conditions used by Zollers et al. (11). Study results are supported by data from field implant quality assurance surveys.

Materials and Methods

All Studies. Sanitation procedures during implanting were as described by Botts et al. (2). In short, ears that were clean and dry were implanted without further preparation. Debris was removed from contaminated ears with a serrated knife or wire brush. Wet ears were washed, first with clean water, then with disinfectant solution. Implanter needles were dipped in disinfectant solution after each animal and dipped again if contact was made with the animal prior to implanting. Physical debris was removed from needles as necessary using sponges soaked with disinfectant. All implant products were kept in water-proof containers until use.

Implant site evaluations were conducted by an experienced evaluator who was unaware of study design or treatment designation. For evaluation, animals were removed from the pen and restrained individually in the feedyard animal handling facility. Implant sites were inspected visually and by palpation. Sanitation-related implant site defects (abscessed or missing due to abscess) were recorded. Other implant site defects, such as improper location, were recorded but are not reported herein.