By Nolan Nansel (Advisor: Dr. Kasimanickam)
Summary: The primary objective of the beef industry is the efficient production of high-quality protein to supply both domestic and international markets. Artificial insemination (AI) is a reproductive management tool that enhances production efficiency through genetic improvement, increased calf crop uniformity, and improved reproductive performance. Successful AI programs depend on effective estrous synchronization protocols that manipulate the bovine estrous cycle to precisely control the timing of ovulation and insemination. This paper reviews the physiological basis of the estrous cycle in beef heifers, describes the mechanisms by which estrous synchronization protocols manipulate follicular and luteal dynamics, and summarizes reported pregnancy outcomes associated with their use. Pregnancy per artificial insemination (P/AI) from a field-based comparison of two synchronization protocols is presented and evaluated relative to previously published literature. Results from this case study demonstrated differences in P/AI between protocols, with pregnancy rates consistent with those reported under controlled research conditions, indicating successful implementation in commercial beef heifer operations. Management considerations, including cattle handling, labor requirements, and technician skill, are discussed as potential contributors to variation in reproductive outcomes. Overall, these findings support the strategic selection of estrous synchronization protocols as an important component of reproductive management in beef heifer development programs.
Conclusions: The modified 7-5 synchronization protocol improved P/AI compared with the 5-5 protocol in beef heifers under commercial management conditions, demonstrating that adjustments in CIDR exposure and GnRH timing can enhance follicular synchrony and reproductive performance. While overall P/AI was not influenced by BCS, RTS, age, or location, numerical trends suggest that physiological maturity and body condition may still contribute to fertility outcomes. These findings support the practical use of the 7-5 protocol in heifer development programs, and highlight the importance of careful management, including protocol adherence, cattle and semen handling, and AI technician skill, to optimize reproductive success.
By Amanda Guisinger (Advisor: Dr. Marre)
Summary: Obstructive urolithiasis is one of the most important diseases in small ruminant medicine, both economically and in terms of animal health. This disease is not only painful and has the potential to raise animal welfare concern, but it is often associated with both extreme emotional and financial strain for the owner as well. This disease occurs when uroliths, also known as calculi or “stones,” form within the urinary bladder and create solid concretions of various sizes composing of mucus, proteins, cellular material, and minerals. When these stones translocate into the urethra, they pose a risk for obstruction by blocking urine’s route to be voided from the body, causing it to back up into the bladder. This risk for obstruction is particularly high in males, as their urethra is much longer and narrower than females. While obstructive urolithiasis is known to occur in almost every animal species that encompass veterinary medicine, there is a markedly increased proportion of these cases that occur within small ruminants. Although recent research over the past several decades has resulted in a drastic expansion of our knowledge base regarding urolith development and risk factors, such as diet, water intake, urine pH, castration age, and others, there is still much to be uncovered about this complex disease.
Conclusions: As discussed throughout this paper, obstructive urolithiasis is a common disease process affecting our small ruminant patients, and it is important that clinicians are prepared to educate and have in-depth discussions with clients regarding its pathogenesis and management. Treatment options are vast, however it is important that owners are aware of success rates both in the short and long-term, as well as potential complications, in order for them to make informed decisions regarding treatment and prevention strategies. Ultimately, this disease is not a one-size-fits-all, and multimodal preventative care tailored to the individual patient is often required. To do this, the stone types present must be known in order to implement the correct management regimen, and so it is highly recommended that all uroliths be sent in for analysis. Most important to discuss with clients is the fact that there is still much we are learning about urolith development.
and risk factors, and sometimes medical management and prevention strategies aren’t enough to prevent obstructive urolithiasis from occurring.
By Samantha Schallon (Advisor: Dr. Olivarez)
Summary: Small ruminant diagnostic tests suffer from many of the same limitations that other species’ diagnostics do, whether that be delayed antibody formation, carrier states, unreliable pathogen shedding, unavailable gold standard tests, difficult to detect clinical states, or just general expense. However, there is the unique challenge in small ruminant practice which is that most testing options are validated in groups of thousands of animals, and, in many cases, in cattle rather than sheep or goats. For an owner of one or two small ruminants, or a hobby farmer of ten to fifteen animals, these tests cannot be interpreted the same way as when they are originally validated. Many small ruminant owners will order and interpret their own diagnostic testing without understanding why the results are inconsistent or inaccurate. This leads to frustration and unnecessary financial or emotional strain. In this paper, current diagnostic recommendations for Caseous Lymphadenitis (CL), Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis (CAE), and Johne’s disease are explored with the goal of providing a framework for clinicians to use to assist small ruminant owners according to specific herd goals.
Conclusions: In this paper, we discussed the diagnostic challenges and recommendations for three common small ruminant diseases – CL, CAE, and Johnes – based on available literature. Goals ranging from complete eradication to monitoring or surveillance were discussed. While many of the challenges surrounding testing for these diseases are similar to those of any diagnostic test, there are some factors specific to small ruminants that complicate the topic. Due to the growing number of pet ruminants and small hobby farms, the disconnect between a client’s goals and the approved application of current diagnostics has grown. Clients in the small ruminant world are used to ordering, collecting, and interpreting diagnostic results independent of a veterinarian. Having current information and recommendations with a strong basis in current literature will allow a practitioner to make their value to the client clear and help discussions go smoothly. The challenges of small ruminant diagnostics are an opportunity for the veterinarian to facilitate educated conversations with clients about diagnostic testing limitations, allowing them to make the most informed use of our current options, leading to less client dissatisfaction and diagnostic failure.
By McKenzi Davison (Advisor: Dr. Cary)
Summary: Workforce shortages are a persistent issue across the veterinary industry. These shortages are most pronounced in rural communities due to economic constraints, strenuous working hours, and geographic isolation. Agricultural sectors are especially vulnerable, as food animal and mixed-animal veterinarians comprise a small proportion of the national veterinary workforce compared to companion animal practitioners. Rural living presents unique challenges that influence both the availability of veterinary care and the willingness of professionals to practice in these regions. Limited access to healthcare, fewer educational opportunities, reduced economic stability, spousal factors, and fewer social and recreational resources often deter individuals from living rurally. On the other hand, living rurally can also be seen as an enticing opportunity to live amongst fewer people, enjoy greater areas of public land and outdoor recreation. For some people, living rurally is the ideal environment to live, work, and pursue their hobbies.
The challenges discussed directly influence rural veterinary practice desirability. Recruitment and retention of veterinarians remain major obstacles, as rural practitioners often face heavier workloads, financial instability, on-call emergency obligations, and difficulties maintaining work-life balance. Rising educational debt further influences career decisions, pushing many graduates toward higher-paying urban or corporate positions regardless of rural experience and background. Despite these efforts, no single strategy can resolve rural veterinary shortages. Meaningful progress will require a multifaceted approach that includes financial incentives, earlier exposure to rural practice, mentorship opportunities, improved networking, and proactive workforce planning.
Conclusions: As we continue to work towards addressing the issue of rural veterinary shortages, it’s apparent that there is not a single solution. Keeping an open mind and implementing various tactics will be necessary to make progress in bridging the gap. Financial incentive programs both pre- and post-graduation are valuable in creating opportunities and showcasing areas of need, though can be limiting regarding the species service requirements associated with them. Though large animal medicine is often an area of immense shortage, it should not be overlooked that many rural regions are in need of care for all species. Broadening the species to be serviced for loan-repayment incentives to include more mixed animal practice opportunities could help increase the number of veterinarians capable and interested in helping underserved regions.
Further, shortage areas are often designated as such too late. Development of better shortage awareness prior to a region becoming a veterinary care desert has been mentioned by the USDA. Enhancing networking connections between those responsible for delegating shortage areas, older generation practitioners servicing the regions, veterinary institutions, and veterinary students may provide benefit. Providing veterinary students with preceptorships and externship opportunities with rural regions could help promote experience and networking that may in turn develop into mentorship. Clear communication is essential to relationship development between all parties of veterinary medicine and plays a pivotal role in establishing mentor-mentee bonds. Younger generation veterinarians frequently seek mentorship in their early career, and developing these relationships before graduation could aid in enhancing their comfortability towards entering rural veterinary medicine. The historical structure and mentality surrounding rural medicine must be reshaped to promote interest in the next generation of veterinarians.
By Natalee Glanville (Advisor: Alyssa Marre)
Summary: Food animal veterinarians are uniquely positioned at the intersection of animal health, public health, food security, antimicrobial stewardship, and environmental sustainability. Their expertise extends far beyond individual animal treatment, yet veterinary services are often utilized primarily for emergency care rather than integrated as a foundational component of production systems. Economic pressures, persistent rural veterinary shortages, increased access to unverified online information, and misalignment between veterinarian and producer perceptions have reinforced this reactive model of veterinary engagement. This paper explores these barriers to understand on-farm realities and perceptions that may be hindering collaboration between veterinarians and farmers.
To remain viable within modern agriculture, the veterinarian–producer relationship must shift from a reactive, veterinarian-directed model of episodic service provision to a collaborative, client-centered approach grounded in long-term partnership. This paper highlights that farmers operate within complex systems shaped by personal values, identity, risk perception, social norms, and varying management philosophies. Recognizing these behavioral differences is essential for building effective veterinarian–producer partnerships and fostering meaningful change. By prioritizing client-centered communication, learner-focused education, and shared decision-making, veterinarians can move beyond emergency response and embed their expertise into the core of food animal production systems. Integrating veterinary insight as a consistent, trusted resource is not simply beneficial; it is vital to the future of rural veterinary medicine, food system stability, and the communities that depend upon them.
Conclusions: The challenges facing modern agriculture are multifactorial, and so too are the barriers that shape veterinarian–producer collaboration. Economic pressures, workforce shortages, misaligned perceptions of the veterinarian’s role, and the proliferation of unverified online information all influence how and when producers engage veterinary expertise. However, as this paper has demonstrated, successful interventions must extend beyond simply providing information or emphasizing financial return. Behavior is shaped by values, identity, trust, perceived control, and social norms, and influencing producer decision-making requires an understanding of these underlying drivers. Veterinarians who recognize producer typologies and behavioral influences are better equipped to guide change in ways that align with the producer’s goals.
Furthermore, embracing client-centered communication and integrating the producer’s perspective into planning are not optional additions to clinical practice; they are foundational components of meaningful collaboration. Moving away from a reactive, problem-oriented model toward a relationship-centered, advisory approach creates space for shared decision making, learner-centered education, and long-term strategic planning. Reframing the veterinarian–producer relationship as a strategic alliance acknowledges that both parties hold expertise. Producers bring experiential knowledge, generational insight, and intimate familiarity with their operations. Veterinarians bring scientific evidence, systems thinking, and a broader understanding of public health, animal welfare, and sustainability. When these forms of expertise are integrated rather than isolated, the result is a more resilient and effective agricultural system.
Ultimately, to remain viable within modern agriculture, food animal veterinary medicine must continue to evolve beyond reactive service delivery and toward collaborative, client-centered partnership. Veterinarians must be willing to step beyond the confines of emergency response and actively cultivate trust, transparency, and shared values, while producers must recognize veterinary services as long-term investments in herd health and operational success. When both parties commit to this reframed partnership, veterinary medicine moves beyond episodic intervention and into its essential role as a cornerstone of food animal production. The path forward is not simply about changing practices—it is about redefining relationships. Within that shift lies the opportunity to strengthen both the veterinary profession and the agricultural systems it supports, ensuring they remain viable, resilient, and effective for generations to come.
By Emma Sells (Advisor: Dr. Marre)
Summary: Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) poses a significant threat to dairy operations, yielding high economic losses and having long-term implications on longevity of dairy animals. There are a multitude of treatment and preventative options for BRD, with antibiotic therapies being a common approach. For example, in the operation studied, pre-weaned calves affected with pneumonia are given an initial dose of Draxxin KP (tulathromycin with ketoprofen) and evaluated for re-treatment after 5 days. If the calf needs re-treatment, they receive another dose of Draxxin KP followed by an additional 5 day waiting period. Once this period is complete, calves receive a dose of Resflor Gold (florfenicol with flunixin meglumine) if still showing clinical symptoms. This protocol is limited by the possibility of antibiotic resistance and the high cost of antimicrobial drugs. In oppose to repeating the second dose of Draxxin KP, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of replacing it with the NSAID flunixin meglumine (Banamine Transdermal, BTD) compared to the control group which was treated with the standard protocol. Results indicated no difference in re-treatment rates between the two treatment groups. There was significant reduction in mortality from respiratory disease in the BTD group, along with an increased length of time between 2nd and 3rd treatments. It is suggested that treatment with an NSAID may improve calf vigor and reduce acute lung inflammation that contributes to the development of chronic lung pathology. More research is needed into the mechanism of these changes, and the economic consequences of BTD treatment compared to standard antimicrobial treatment. This study provides valuable insight into the use of ancillary NSAIDs for calf BRD treatment, with BTD showing potential for use in these treatment protocols.
Conclusions: Overall, this study supports the notion that BTD may be a beneficial introduction to farm protocols for the treatment of pneumonia in calves. There were no significant differences in third treatment rate between the Control and BTD groups, indicating that utilizing Banamine TD as a second treatment for BRD did not differ from antimicrobial treatment in re-treatment rates. Since this study was designed as a non-inferiority trial, we cannot conclude whether one treatment was beneficial over the other; rather, we can simply state that the treatments were not statistically different. Additionally, BTD calves had significantly less mortality due to BRD compared to Control calves. Further investigation is needed into why these differences were observed, and the physiologic mechanism behind a reduction in mortality. We theorize that the observed changes are due to the anti-inflammatory properties of flunixin meglumine, which reduces secondary damage to lung tissue that results in long-term lung consolidation and mortality. In addition, we found an increase in days between 2nd and 3rd treatment in BTD calves which may imply a longer resolution of clinical signs associated with BRD. The anti- inflammatory properties and pain mitigation provided from an NSAID like BTD may improve calf vigor, allowing improved feed intake and allocation of resources towards fighting infection. While there is still much research to be done, this study provided valuable insight into the utilization of BTD in calf pneumonia protocols.
Replacing an antimicrobial treatment with topical flunixin meglumine poses benefits to producers, veterinarians, and the animals themselves. As previous studies have demonstrated, administering an NSAID during BRD treatment reduces calf discomfort, which is associated positively with animal welfare. In addition, production economics may be significantly impacted by BTD. Calf retention rates to weaning are of high economic importance to producers, as mortality poses the largest incurred expense from a BRD diagnosis. There may be other economic consequences from BTD that require further investigation, such as the impacts on Average Daily Gain (ADG), growth, and development of future chronic respiratory disease in calves (which is associated with reduced milk production at maturity). Ease of application is another consideration with the utilization of BTD on production operations. Application of BTD, in oppose to the traditional intravenous (IV) administration route, may be considered easier for farm employees with the proper training. BTD is applied onto the skin over the calf’s dorsum, which requires minimal restraint and stress on the calf. There are also no costs from a syringe and needle with each application, and no risk of inadvertent intramuscular or subcutaneous injection of the IV product which can cause significant pathology. For these reasons, BTD should be considered as an ancillary anti-inflammatory treatment for calf pneumonia protocols.
This study provides evidence on the evolving treatment options for calves with BRD. Additional investigation is needed into the physiologic causes for the observed differences in mortality and treatment interval. Furthermore, future studies could consider the time intervals between antimicrobial treatments and the previously discussed potential impacts of flunixin meglumine on feed intake and other parameters of calf health. While this study is a valuable addition to the data available regarding BRD treatment, it did not come without limitations. Due to the operation’s set-up, we were unable to blind farm employees to the calf’s treatment group, which could contribute bias towards selection of which calves received a third treatment. For similar reasons, it must be acknowledged that there was variance in case definition for BRD between farm employees, with multiple employees evaluating calves daily and determining whether additional treatment is necessary. Each employee had a different selection criterion for determining whether treatment was needed, and the farm has a historically high rate of treatment amongst the youngstock. Despite these limitations, this study provides additional knowledge to the data pool on BRD treatment options. As previously shown, there is limited and mixed evidence for use of ancillary NSAIDs in BRD treatment. With a wide range in treatment options for BRD and large variation between farms in calf husbandry, every study on BRD provides additional resources for veterinarians to reference before making treatment decisions. In order for practitioners to make evidence-based decisions on treatment protocols, it is imperative that further research is done into BRD and its multitude of treatment options.