Pharmacokinetics of oral and subcutaneous meloxicam: Effect on indicators of pain and inflammation after knife castration in weaned beef calves

Oral meloxicam is labelled for reducing pain and inflammation associated with castration in cattle in Canada, however, subcutaneous meloxicam is only labelled for pain associated with dis-budding and abdominal surgery. The aim of this project was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of oral (PO; 1.0 mg/kg BW) and subcutaneous meloxicam (SC; 0.5 mg/kg BW), and to assess the effect of meloxicam on physiological and behavioural indicators of pain associated with knife castration in 7–8 month old calves. Twenty-three Angus crossbred beef calves (328 ± 4.4 kg BW) were randomly assigned to two treatments: PO n = 12 or SC n = 11 administration of meloxicam immediately before knife castration. Physiological parameters included salivary and hair cortisol, substance P, haptoglobin, serum amyloid-A, weight, complete blood count, scrotal and rectal temperature. Behavioural parameters included standing and lying behaviour, pen behaviour and feeding behaviour. Data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX (SAS), with repeated measures using mixed procedures including treatment as a fixed effect and animal and pen as a random effect. The pharmacokinetic profile of the drug including area under the curve, volume of distribution and clearance was greater (P < 0.05) in PO than SC calves. After surgery, substance P concentrations, white blood cell counts (WBC), weight and lying duration were greater (P < 0.05) in PO than SC calves, while scrotal circumference was lower (P < 0.05) in PO calves than SC calves. Although statistical differences were observed for pharmacokinetic, physiological and behavioural parameters differences were small and may lack biological relevance.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Effect of meloxicam and lidocaine administered alone or in combination on indicators of pain and distress during and after knife castration in weaned beef calves

To assess the effect of meloxicam and lidocaine on indicators of pain associated with castration, forty-eight Angus crossbred beef calves (304 ± 40.5 kg of BW, 7–8 months of age) were used in a 28 day experiment. The experiment consisted of a 2 × 2 factorial design where main factors included provision of analgesia and local anaesthesia. Analgesia consisted of: no-meloxicam (N; n = 24) single s.c. administration of lactated ringer’s solution and meloxicam (M; n = 24) single dose of 0.5 mg/kg of s.c. meloxicam. Local anesthesia consisted of: no-lidocaine (R; n = 24) ring block administration of lactated ringer’s solution or lidociane (L; n = 24) ring block administration of lidocaine. To yield the following treatments: no meloxicam + no lidocaine (N-R; n = 12), no meloxicam + lidocaine (N-L; n = 12), meloxicam + no lidocaine (M-R; n = 12) and meloxicam + lidocaine (M-L; n = 12). Salivary cortisol concentrations were lower (lidocaine × time effect; P 0.05) were observed for average daily gain (ADG), weights or feeding behaviour. Overall, both lidocaine and meloxicam reduced physiological and behavioural indicators of pain. Although there was only one meloxicam × lidocaine interaction, lidocaine and meloxicam reduced physiological and behavioural parameters at different time points, which could be more effective at mitigating pain than either drug on its own.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Does the Location of Concentrate Provision Affect Voluntary Visits, and Milk and Milk Component Yield for Cows in an Automated Milking System?

Eight Holstein cows were used in a cross-over design test whether concentrate allocation in an automated milking system (AMS) affects DMI and milk production. Cows were fed a high-energy partial mixed ration (HE-PMR) with 0.5 kg of AMS concentrate or a low-energy PMR (LE-PMR) with 5.0 kg of AMS concentrate. AMS concentrate intake was greater and PMR intake was reduced for LE-PMR than HE-PMR. Milk, fat, and protein yields were not affected by treatment. In a guided traffic flow barn, providing a PMR with greater energy density increases DMI, but has no effect on milk and milk component yield.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author