In the past five years, there have been increasing concerns about pollution risk from proposed coal mining in the Eastern Slopes in southern Alberta. This region of southern Alberta extends from the upper alpine slopes of the Rocky Mountains down to the foothills and onto the Prairies. This area forms the headwaters of the Oldman, Bow and Red Deer rivers, which merge to form the South Saskatchewan River.

In 1911, Canada’s department of the interior recognized the importance of the Eastern Slopes watershed that supplied water to the river systems that in turn provide water to the great plains to the east. Policies were developed to protect the Eastern Slopes and to keep lands from being privatized. It’s very important that the Eastern Slopes continue to be protected into the future. These lands have become very important as the major source of water to downstream users in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

If coal mining proceeds in the Eastern Slopes of southern and central Alberta, downstream water users could be seriously impacted. Selenium and other elements potentially could contaminate water quality for humans, livestock and irrigated crop production and cause various other environmental and ecological concerns. In this article, I would like to focus more deeply on effects of Se on irrigation water quality, soil quality, and irrigated crop production and quality.

Selenium in drinking water and for aquatic life

Health Canada has an upper limit of 50 micrograms per litre (µg/L) of Se for drinking water, which is the limit used by the Alberta government. Alberta uses an upper limit of one to two µg/L for aquatic life. British Columbia uses an upper limit of 10 µg/L for Se for drinking water and of one µg/L for aquatic life.

Selenium in soils, forages and animals

First, it is important to note that Se is important for agriculture. It is an essential micronutrient for animals and humans. Selenium is not required by plants, but roots naturally take up very small amounts from soil. Plants are the main source of dietary Se for livestock.

Selenium can be found in soil in various forms, including selenide, selenite, selenate, elemental selenium and organic selenium. Selenium can also be found in different fractions in soil, including ion-exchangeable, oxide-bound, organic, sulphide-bound, and residual forms. The majority of Se in agricultural soils exists as selenate (SeO₄⁻²) or selenite (SeO₃⁻²). The toxicity level of Se in soil depends on the amount, chemical forms and bioavailability of the element. Therefore, Se toxicity levels in soil are variable and a function of a number of chemical soil factors. For more detailed information on Se in soils, read Imran et al (see “Reading for reference” at the end of this article for details).

It’s important to keep in mind that Se accumulation in soil can pose serious threats to crop production and agro-ecosystems due to bioaccumulation. Selenium toxicity in soil and then into food chains depends on Se forms in soil, rather than total Se contents. In 1992, the Geological Survey of Canada noted Se levels in Alberta soils ranged from 0.1 to 2.7 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), Saskatchewan soils ranged from 0.1 to 3.1 mg/kg and Manitoba soils ranged from 0.1 to 4.7 mg/kg.

Beef cattle have a Se requirement of 0.1 mg/kg (100 µg/kg) of dry matter. Generally, for domestic animals, the Se requirement is in the range of 0.05 to 0.2 mg/kg (50 to 200 µg/kg) in dry matter. A Se toxicity threat to livestock can occur if forages are continually fed at marginal levels of Se at 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg. Forage above 0.5 mg/kg of Se can cause acute toxic conditions in livestock.

Health Canada suggests adult humans have a daily requirement of 45 micrograms per day (µg/day) of Se, which is 0.000045 grams/day. The tolerable upper intake level (UL) for Se for adult humans is 400 µg/day or 0.0004 grams/day from food, water and other sources — very small but critical amounts of Se.

Conversions for context

1 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg) = 1 part per million (p.p.m.)

1 microgram/litre (µg /L) = 1 part per billion (p.p.b.)

1 milligram/litre (mg/L) = 1 part per million (p.p.m.)

1 milligram/litre (mg/L) = 1,000 micrograms/litre (µg/L)

Irrigation water quality

The level for Se in irrigation water for Alberta is 0.02 milligrams/litre (mg/L), which is 20 micrograms/litre (μg/L). The safe level of selenium in irrigation water in British Columbia is set at 0.01 mg/L (10 μg/L). The World Health Organization set a guideline value for Se in irrigation water at 0.04 mg/L (40 μg/L).

An Alberta Agriculture report on irrigation water quality in southern Albera, by Little et al, found Se was detected in 69 per cent of collected irrigation water samples (419 of 607) across a number of irrigation districts. Detection frequencies within the irrigation districts ranged from 34.4 per cent in the United district to 95.3 per cent in the Western district. The greatest mean concentration was observed was 0.0021 milligrams per litre (mg/L, or 2.1 μg/L), while the greatest maximum concentration was observed at the Lethbridge Northern district at 0.01 mg/L (10 μg/L). Selenium exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic life in 12.8 per cent of samples. Irrigation guidelines, however, were not exceeded. The lowest compliance rate was found in Magrath district return flows (28.6 per cent).

The good news about this 15-year-old study was that Se level in irrigation water was acceptable in all 607 water samples from an irrigation quality standpoint in 2010. The concerning news was that Se was not acceptable for aquatic life in almost 13 per cent of samples. Se was of greatest concern in the Lethbridge Northern district, which receives all its water from the Oldman River — which is downstream from the proposed Grassy Mountain project.

How much selenium could be applied in irrigation water?

Here the important questions to ask are:

• How much Se would be applied in irrigation water?

• How would Se impact irrigated soils?

• How would Se impact crop production and quality?

These concerns would depend on the level of Se in the water. Keep in mind, the Alberta government considers 0.02 mg/L (20 μg/L) of Se to be the upper limit for irrigation water; the British Columbia environment ministry considers 0.01 mg/L (10 μg/L) of Se as the upper limit for irrigation water.

Most irrigation farmers apply 250 to 500 millimetres (mm) of irrigation water per season to their crops. Amounts of 250 to 300 mm are typically applied to grain and oilseed crops, while 400 to 500 mm are applied to alfalfa and special crops such as sugar beets, potatoes or corn. The amount applied each season varies depending on the amount and timing of growing-season precipitation.

If the Se level in irrigation water is 0.05 mg/L (50 µg/L) — the upper limit for drinking water — how much Se would be added to soil? To determine Se addition to soil, I will use 250 and 500 mm of gross irrigation water application, which works out to 2,500 and 5,000 cubic metres of water per hectare (m³/ha) respectively. I used a Se irrigation water level of 0.05 mg/L, or 0.00005 kg of Se per cubic metre (kg/m³) of water. When 250 mm of water is applied, then about 0.125 kg per hectare (kg/ha) of Se is applied in a growing season. When 500 mm of water is applied, 0.25 kg/ha of Se is applied in a growing season.

Amounts of 0.125 and 0.25 kg/ha of Se seem like very small amounts, but over 10 years would amount to an accumulation level of 1.25 and 2.5 kg/ha in soil and likely would result in unsafe levels of Se in harvested plant material. Again, keep in mind, Se levels in forage of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg are a concern for livestock.

Consequences of Se contamination in irrigated soils

If coal mining in the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains proceeds, Se contamination of downstream water is a likely result. When contaminated irrigation water is used, Se will accumulate in soil and will be taken up by crops. As Se accumulates in soil over years, more Se will be taken up by plants, making crops less suitable or unsuitable for human or livestock consumption.

High-value crops such as potatoes, beans and other pulse crops, canola and various grains are grown under irrigation for human consumption. High-yielding silage corn is widely grown for feed for the intensive livestock industry and alfalfa is also commonly grown for feed. Se-contaminated water applied to irrigated land over a period of a just a few years could be devastating to the irrigation industry. Production of crops for human consumption and feed for livestock production would be affected.

The irrigation industry contributes significantly to Alberta’s economy. It generates a large portion of the area’s gross domestic product (GDP), creates substantial employment and ensures diverse crop production. The irrigation industry likely contributes nearly $8 billion to the regional economy in southern Alberta. If irrigated land is well managed, irrigated crop production would be sustainable for hundreds of years. Coal is a non-renewable resource — and mining coal would be short-term, with long-term environmental problems.

Irrigation farmers and the public must ask: “Can we afford the risk of contaminating and damaging our irrigated lands? What would the effects be on food and feed quality produced on irrigated lands? What would be the environmental and economic impact of damaging irrigated lands with Se?”

To sum up

Let’s review: Health Canada has an upper limit of 50 µg/L of Se for drinking water, which is used by the Alberta government. Alberta uses an upper limit of 20 µg/L for Se in irrigation water and an upper limit of one to two µg/L for aquatic life. British Columbia uses an upper limit of 10 µg/L for Se for drinking water, an upper limit of 10 µg/L for Se for irrigation water and an upper limit of 1.0 µg/L for aquatic life.

Decisions need to be made as to whether water is best managed based on drinking water quality, irrigation water quality or aquatic life and river health. Ideally, from a water quality standpoint, the health of our rivers and lakes should be our highest priority. If river health and aquatic life of our rivers is well maintained and cared for, this will ensure the health of our environment.

In my opinion, using a Se upper limit of one to two µg/L would be a very wise target to maintain healthy rivers and lakes. This would ensure Se levels are very safe for human consumption, livestock, irrigation water quality and aquatic life.

CORRECTION, July 7, 2025: The print and previous online versions of this article incorrectly noted a selenium irrigation water level of 0.05 milligrams per litre equaling 0.005 kg per cubic metre. That number has been corrected to 0.0005 kg per cubic metre in the version above.

Reading for reference

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Selenium.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. 2025. British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife & Agriculture – Guideline Summary. Water Quality Guideline Series, WQG-20. Prov. B.C., Victoria B.C.

Government of Alberta. 2018. Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters. Water Policy Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks. Edmonton, Alberta.

Health Canada. 2014. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document — Selenium. Water and Air Quality Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. (Catalogue No H144-13/4-2013E-PDF).

Health Canada. 2021. Selenium and its compounds – information sheet.

Little, J., Kalischuk, A., Gross, D., and Sheedy, C. 2010. Assessment of Water Quality in Alberta’s Irrigation Districts, Second Edition. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Alberta, Canada. 181 pp.

Fordyce, Fiona. 2010. Chapter 16 Selenium Deficiency and Toxicity in the Environment. In: Essentials of Medical Geology, Editor: Olle Selinus, Publisher: Springer Dordrecht.

Muhammad Imran, Zhikun Chen, Ayaz Mehmood, Shah Rukh, Wang Weixie, Waleed Asghar and Farhan Iftikhar. 2023. Distribution of Selenium in Soils and Human Health.

The post Selenium: Agricultural, environmental and human concerns appeared first on Grainews.

The severe diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headaches and dehydration can cause serious consequences in people, especially in the elderly and young children.

There are, however, numerous strains of salmonella bacteria — some of which are adapted to cattle and tend to reside in the cattle population. These strains can cause significant disease in dairy and beef herds — and in people who are exposed to them, whether by working with sick cattle or by consuming raw milk from infected dairy cows.

Salmonella outbreaks are more common in dairy herds, where animals are more closely confined, but occasionally outbreaks also occur in beef operations.

Salmonella is spread by fecal-oral transmission, and the source of the infection is usually feces from infected cows.

It may be very difficult to identify which cows are the source of the infection and are shedding bacteria, because some infected carrier cows may show little or no symptoms and still shed as many organisms in their feces as cows that are clinically ill.

Other sources of infection may include rodents, birds, flies, cats, dogs and even people on occasion. Outbreaks are more common in the calving season.

Over the last number of years, a particular strain called Salmonella dublin has been identified as a cause of infections in cattle in some parts of the world, including Europe and now North America. Salmonella dublin has become a common cause of disease outbreaks on dairy farms in many parts of Canada, and I have also spoken to many veterinarians who have also had outbreaks in cow-calf operations.

Salmonella dublin is adapted to live in cattle, which remain the most important reservoir of this strain of the bacteria. It is also a strain of salmonella that’s very difficult to treat because it tends to be multi-drug resistant and will not respond to antibiotic therapy.

Cattle, people and companion animal species can be infected by this strain of the bacteria and it can lead to serious illness.

Salmonellosis is usually a disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, and it typically causes a fever and severe diarrhea that is often bloody. If untreated, the diarrhea can lead to dehydration and death of the animal.

However, Salmonella dublin is unique in cattle in that it also can present in young calves as a respiratory illness and can cause more systemic infections in mature animals, which might result in abortions in pregnant cows.

Often the initial signs of disease in a herd include seeing young calves with pneumonia-like symptoms and calf mortality.

Control of salmonella outbreaks is difficult in cattle operations, but especially so in the case of Salmonella dublin infections.

There are three reasons for this:

• Multi-drug resistance: Antibiotics are of little value in treating clinical cases because this strain is so resistant to many commonly used antibiotics. It’s even thought that antibiotic therapy may extend the duration of the animal shedding the organism.

• Ability to survive in the environment: All salmonella strains can survive in the environment for extended periods of time, and Salmonella dublin has been shown to survive in dry feces for more than a year and in water, soil or moist areas out of direct sunlight for up to four or five years. An important aspect to controlling salmonella outbreaks is to limit the environmental exposure and to avoid contaminating water sources, feed and other equipment that may be used with cattle, such as halters, ropes, brooms, buckets, shovels, esophageal calf feeders and nipple bottles.

• The carrier animal: Salmonella dublin is much more efficient at creating asymptomatic carriers than many other strains of salmonella. When these animals undergo a period of stress, such as calving, they may start shedding the organism again in subsequent years and cause other infections to occur. Identifying these carrier organisms is difficult, but blood tests are available at some diagnostic laboratories that may help to identify carrier animals so that they can be culled.

In the face of a Salmonella dublin outbreak, exceptional calving management procedures must be instituted. Separating clinically infected animals from cows that are calving is essential, as well as maintaining high levels of biosecurity and environmental hygiene throughout the farm. Producers will need to work closely with their veterinarian to limit the spread of this highly infectious disease.

The ideal solution is to not introduce Salmonella dublin onto a farm or ranch in the first place. Most outbreaks are caused by introducing cattle onto an operation that have been previously infected and are carriers of the bacteria.

Having a strong biosecurity program in place and limiting the introductions of animals onto a farm is the best method of preventing this disease from causing problems in a cattle herd.

The post How to manage Salmonella dublin on a cow-calf operation appeared first on Grainews.

While there are a couple of vaccines licensed for cattle, they do require multiple shots. Vaccines help, but focusing on decreasing stress and other diseases can limit mycoplasma infection.

Mycoplasma comes in many clinical forms but in feedlots we mainly see it in respiratory problems and in joints.

The respiratory problem is often indistinguishable from other common causes of pneumonia in the feedlot and the joint form can be very similar to histophilus abscesses.

Mycoplasma commonly plays some role, and it can be confirmed for chronic cases in feedlots with lab tests to verify veterinarian diagnosis.

A decision tree needs to be established early in the case to guide decisions to treat, ship or euthanize, for the welfare of the calf, if the case becomes clinical.

These cases cost the feedlot industry millions of dollars in treatment and labour costs, as well as in deaths and chronically ill animals that need to be euthanized. It’s not a fun disease to deal with.

Prevention

With mycoplasma, we need to really, unequivocally, concentrate on prevention.

Even though a few antibiotics have indications for mycoplasma on the label, those are more for metaphylactic treatment and use when exposure is imminent.

It is believed that after a few weeks in the feedlot pretty much all calves are infected (that is, have been exposed and are carrying the organism) yet in well-managed yards where preimmunized and preconditioned (weaned already) calves are purchased, the incidence can be kept to a minimum.

In cattle, mycoplasma is a secondary invader, meaning in the case of respiratory disease it often comes in secondary to the viral pathogens, especially IBR (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis). Other respiratory bacteria such as mannheimia, pasteurella or histophilus can also get established and set the lungs up for the invasion of mycoplasma later in the course of the disease.

A good number of these infections may then spread to the joints. Once in the joints, especially if more than one joint is involved, chances of recovery are slim to none. They then become an animal welfare issue and often cost lots of money in antibiotics, painkillers and other medications before a decision is made to euthanize.

In the bison industry, mycoplasma is almost always a primary pathogen and can cause considerable death loss in naïve populations of calves, cows and bulls. There appears to be immunity established once the disease goes through, but death losses can get quite high on initial exposure. Some bison feedlots live with a low percentage of it and ideally try to have their calves come in with maximal respiratory protection to minimize its severity.

Even though it seems primary in bison, by keeping lung health as high as possible, severity and incidence seems to be reduced. Bison cow-calf herds that have had bad outbreaks seem to be free of cases going forward, which to me means natural immunity is developed.

Stress

Anything then that reduces stress, and/or reduces the likelihood of the other respiratory bugs, theoretically should reduce the incidence of mycoplasma pneumonia.

Currently two mycoplasma vaccines on the market appear to have good efficacy, but here’s the kicker: they need an initial shot and either one or two booster shots essentially before the chance of exposure.

Feedlots that have a decent infection rate would need to know where they are sourcing their cattle and have them preimmunized before coming to the feedlot. Perhaps the original vaccination for mycoplasma done on the farm, then boostered at the feedlot, will help some.

We as veterinarians always talk about reducing stress. Transportation, processing, weather conditions, parasites, exposure to other cattle and co-mingling all play a role in determining whether calves will get sick.

We have direct control of preimmunization as cow-calf producers. The feedlots then can ask for preimmunized calves. The vast majority of calves are vaccinated in Canada these days for most of the major respiratory pathogens, as well as clostridial protection. The question then is, for which diseases do we pre-immunize? Cow-calf producers are vaccinating their calves younger and reap the benefits of having fewer calves get sick on summer pasture. If the boosters are then given at weaning, we should, in theory, have less respiratory disease.

If we can avoid unnecessary transportation stress by selling directly to feedlots through satellite or online sales, one transportation session is eliminated, and cattle go directly from the source to the feedlot. Distance transported is not as significant as the stress to calves of being loaded and unloaded multiple couple times.

Less sickness and stress lead to less mycoplasma, so it is prudent to use treatments that help calves manage their stressors. Various electrolyte formulations such as Destress have been tried to minimize shrink. Products such as probiotics yield fewer digestive upsets as well.

All these preventive measures ultimately lead to less respiratory disease and less mycoplasma pneumonia or joint infections. With more collaboration between the cow-calf sector (first line of defence), trucker (second line of defence), backgrounder (third line of defence) and feedlot owner (last line of defence) we can all do our part to protect these valuable cattle. Again, owners who calve, wean and raise their own seldom have severe respiratory issues, especially mycoplasma.

We may not ever eliminate mycoplasma but at least we can keep it at bay by the best prevention strategies we know: good husbandry and minimizing stress as much as possible.

The post Lower stress, lower mycoplasma appeared first on Grainews.

The ailment, closely related to tuberculosis, can be found in all ruminants but has particularly high incidence in dairy cattle.

That is believed to be connected to herd management techniques of beef versus dairy herds and the primary transmission vector through fecal matter. Johne’s is linked to decreased milk production and can lead to culling.

Razieh Eshraghi Samani, researcher at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, said Johne’s symptoms usually appear two to five years after infection, causing what’s called an iceberg effect.

“The animals having symptoms are in low numbers but the whole problem is bigger and there are probably more animals infected in the herd that you don’t see,” she said.

Samani said the vaccine she and her team have developed could greatly reduce the impact of the disease.

“There are vaccines across the world but none of them are approved for use in Canada because they have some shortcomings,” said Samani. “They don’t eliminate the bacteria; they just postpone the symptoms.”

The U of C’s vaccine prevents infection and spread of the disease, she said, while also tackling the most common version of the bacteria that causes Johne’s in Canada.

The beef cattle industry could benefit if the vaccine slows rates of infection. It can also combat different strains of the bacteria, Samani said. However, dairy producers would feel the most immediate economic benefits.

“If this vaccine prevents infection, it will prevent the economic burden on the dairy industry. It can prevent the reduction in milk production, prevent lack of fertility, increase the carcass quality at slaughter.”

The vaccine is still in development. The next step is to see if it can be combined with a Johne’s vaccine being developed at the University of Saskatchewan, said Samani.

“If our vaccine can be mixed with the other vaccine, they can have complementary benefits and maybe fully protect animals.”

Commercial access to the vaccine is still at least two years away.

“This is not something that’s coming tomorrow or next week or next year but we can see that there is some promising results,” said Samani.

The post Prairie researchers at work on Johne’s vaccines appeared first on Grainews.

“Johne’s disease is particularly challenging to manage because we have so few options,” says Dr. Cheryl Waldner, professor at the University of Saskatchewan’s Western College of Veterinary Medicine.

To help beef producers make better management decisions about a disease with such uncertainty, the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) created an interactive tool to analyze testing and management options for Johne’s disease. Waldner helped develop the tool.

The chronic disease causes weight loss, persistent diarrhea and death in cattle, resulting in numerous negative effects on beef herds. In addition to premature culling, these effects can include reduced slaughter value, replacement costs, lost gain in calves, loss of genetics and considerable veterinary testing costs.

ALSO READ: Prairie researchers at work on Johne’s vaccines

Because calves younger than six months are more susceptible to Johne’s, efforts to reduce the spread of infection on calving grounds — like those used to reduce calf scours — can help manage the disease.

However, as the beef industry consolidates, the risk of Johne’s entering a herd through new animals bears watching.

“The only way to find and get rid of those infected animals so that they don’t transmit to our calf crop is by testing and culling, and that sounds pretty straightforward, but it’s not. This particular disease is very frustrating because it has a long silent phase,” says Waldner. It can take two to 10 years between the time an animal is infected to when it shows clinical signs, she adds.

Even when animals are shedding the virus, this can be inconsistent and may not show up in tests. As well, the accuracy of available testing is limited.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in this, and because of that, it makes it really hard for producers and veterinarians to try to evaluate the cost-benefit possibilities of actually doing a testing and culling program in their herd. There’s a lot of information to pull together, and it’s easier if we can basically get the computer to do it for us.”

The Johne’s disease risk-reward calculator “pulls together what we do know about the disease, how it might progress in individual animals, how it might spread in the herd and how well the diagnostic tests work in Canadian beef herds,” Waldner says.

“The tool can be customized to fit individual herd sizes, replacement strategies, plans for expansion and a wide range of possible testing possibilities.”

Two versions of the calculator, basic and advanced, are available on the BCRC website. Instead of running the model once and showing one scenario, the tool runs it multiple times and factors in the uncertainties presented by this disease to provide producers with a range of management scenarios.

“It’s a little bit more complicated than a lot of the Excel tools that we typically use for these types of calculations, but given the level of uncertainty, we needed something that allowed us to actually factor that uncertainty into the calculations.”

A key part of developing this tool was incorporating data from Canadian herds into the risk model. “The important thing for us was having this tool reflect data from western Canadian cow-calf herds,” Waldner says, noting much of the existing research on how this disease spreads was conducted in U.S. dairy herds and not useful to this context.

The Canadian Cow-Calf Surveillance Network provided some of the data used to create the model.

Although it’s difficult to determine how fast the disease spreads through a herd, data collected by the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association on this topic helped to inform the model for the calculator. The association has worked with producers who have dealt with Johne’s disease to help track the progress of the disease in their herds, and many of the producers anonymously shared their data with the project developers.

Waldner notes the tool can’t predict exactly what will happen in a herd, but it does provide producers with scenarios to analyze that may help inform their management decisions.

“What I am hoping is that individuals will be able to make better decisions about whether it makes sense to test in their herds and to come up with a testing protocol that makes the most sense for them.”

The Saskatchewan government, Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association and Alberta Beef Producers also funded this calculator’s development.

The post Calculator can analyze Johne’s options appeared first on Grainews.

When label recommendations are followed, a beef animal’s ability to absorb, distribute, break down and excrete a drug are predictable. It’s when those label directions are not followed that we run into concerns. There are distinct differences in the rate of absorption of drugs depending on how they are delivered. If a product is given incorrectly, there is no guarantee that the drug will be effective.

Incorrect route of administration (ROA) could lead to underdosing, which is an animal welfare and production concern when a therapeutic level may not be achieved. This will leave cattle vulnerable to the disease being treated or prevented.

Underdosing is also a concern from an antibiotic stewardship standpoint, as chronically underdosing antimicrobial drugs can lead to resistance.

The ROA also determines a beef animal’s ability to eliminate the product, affecting withdrawal recommendations, and potentially leading to drug residues being detected in meat.

Subcutaneous injections (sub-Q or SQ) are placed just under the skin, as opposed to an intramuscular injection where the medication is placed directly into the muscle. Sub-Q injections are generally less irritating and are the preferred ROA.

Pharmaceutical companies are continually updating products and labels, so become familiar with the current label recommendations and use the sub-Q route whenever possible.

Volume recommendations for cattle injections

The recommended maximum volume per injection site is 10 ml (cc) per site. Increasing the volume of medication injected into one location will impede a beef animal’s ability to absorb and excrete the medication.

An increased volume can lead to a pocket of unabsorbed medication being left in the tissue. This decreases the efficacy of the treatment and could also be detected as drug residue in the carcass of a beef animal.

A lower-volume injection also ensures that the tissue can effectively recover from the irritation of the medication, decreasing the chances of the animal developing an injection site lesion (ISL).

ISLs cost the beef industry 56 cents per head or $1.63 million in 2016, compared to 21 cents per head or $662,951 in 2011, due to higher prevalence rates. There are many steps that can be taken to reduce or even eliminate ISLs.

Proper location

Only inject beef animals in the recommended safe zone on the neck, never in the rump or loin. This ensures that, if an animal has a reaction to the product and develops a lesion, it can easily be trimmed away from the less valuable chuck, rather than damaging the more valuable round cuts.

Injecting outside of the safe zone in the neck can potentially cause injury and even death to the animal being treated. The nuchal ligament is responsible for supporting the head of a beef animal, and if it is damaged via an injection that animal can suffer severe and permanent paralysis. The same result can occur if the spinal cord is inadvertently hit. The jugular furrow contains the jugular vein and carotid artery. If medications are mistakenly injected directly into the bloodstream, animals may suffer severe drug reactions.

A hand-width of space between medication injections will ensure the tissue can adequately recover from the injection and prevent medications from comingling. If medications mix within the animal, they can interact and cause drug reactions, or even inactivate each other, rendering them useless.

Needle size

Choose the appropriate needle size, as shown in the table here, to ensure the product can be delivered while causing the minimum disruption to the tissue. Always choose the smallest gauge needle that can still effectively deliver the type of medication needed. Disposable needles with an aluminum hub, rather than plastic, are preferred.

Keep equipment clean and in good working order to prevent unnecessary tissue trauma and the possibility of localized abscesses.

Never inject through a dirty hide, which will only drag bacteria and debris into the tissue and create a perfect environment for abscesses.

Burred, bent and dull needles will also increase the likelihood of damage and abscessing. This can be prevented by using a quality disposable needle that can be changed anytime damage is evident, every 10-15 injections and every time you enter a multidose vial.

How to restrain cattle for injections

Cattle that are not properly restrained are more likely to suffer from tissue trauma, incorrect injection technique and location, and are at a higher risk for needle breaks. Ensure all animals being treated are safely restrained in a chute that allows the processor easy access to the neck and prevents unnecessary movement in the animal being treated.

A little knowledge goes a long way, and understanding the reasoning behind each recommendation can help instill accountability and ensure producers are diligent in the day-to-day tasks involved in raising cattle for food. Little things done right everyday can safeguard food quality and ensure Canadian food safety remains at a high standard.

The post Follow these tips for safe cattle injections appeared first on Grainews.