Freddy
Well-known member
WE use BAYTRIL strictly for respiratory problems with very good sucess ,we try not to use Nuflor on baby calves ,seems to be hard on their stomachs ....
Draxxin, Micotil, Nuflor
- Thread starter Mueller Show Cattle
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
braunranch
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Freddy said:
Used a little nuflor, been using a bit of resflor,(nuflor/banamine) it works great and quick. The downfall with these drugs according to our vet is they kill the good stomach bacteria as well as dehydrate the animal. He recomends giving electrolites to baby calves if you have to use these drugs. As well as a product called stockman's choice paste to anything treated with these drugs, its basically a probiotic paste. I still like micotil its a little easier on the animal, but not as quick on something really sick. An earlier post mentioned killing a calf with it by accidently hitting a vein, i doubt a vein was hit its a SQ DRUG, so i'm not sure how you'd hit a vein. It was more likely an allergic reaction to the drug or more likely the carrier. I've killed calves with LA from this, saved calves that we're flat out foaming at the mouth from 7 way(blackleg vaccine) with a shot of dex. Any drug or vaccine can cause a reaction.
braunranch said:
Not to be contrary but there are veins and arteries under the skin and it is possible to hit one of them inadvertently with a sub q injection - just like a sub q injection of Excede at the base of the ear can enter a blood vessel and result in a fatal outcome. It is recommended that a 1/2 to 5/8 inch 16 or 18 g needle be used for the sub q injection of Micotil - my guess is that often 1 or 1.5 inch needles are frequently used making it more likely that a blood vessel is hit. Micotil is cardiotoxic to most species when given into a blood vessel and cardiotoxic to the human with any parenteral (sub q, IM, IV, IP) injection
From the Micotil label
Important Safety Information
• Micotil is to be used by, or on the order of, a licensed veterinarian. For cattle or sheep, inject subcutaneously. Intravenous use in cattle or sheep will be fatal.
Sly
Well-known member
Thanks for all the information. Anyone with cattle should read this. Thanks again
https://animalhealth.pfizer.com/sites/pahweb/US/EN/Products/pdf/Excede_Dairy/EXD_BOE_ADMIN_TECHNIQUES_TB.pdf
Good info here as far as the ear injection site for exceed. A couple more approved methods for injection in the base of the ear approved for both dairy and beef cattle. To me, these sites/methods are easier than the "middle 3rd" site. Looser skin, fewer veins, less drainage or leakage after injection.
Good info here as far as the ear injection site for exceed. A couple more approved methods for injection in the base of the ear approved for both dairy and beef cattle. To me, these sites/methods are easier than the "middle 3rd" site. Looser skin, fewer veins, less drainage or leakage after injection.
http://redangusworld.com/resources/2012-10/Antibiotic%20Resource%20Guide.pdf
This is a useful "quick reference guide" I ran across.Very helpful if you don't use these drugs often. Most all "modern" antibiotics are referenced and provides among other info-class of drug, withdrawal, injection type, dosage, efficacy against what types of bacteria.
This is a useful "quick reference guide" I ran across.Very helpful if you don't use these drugs often. Most all "modern" antibiotics are referenced and provides among other info-class of drug, withdrawal, injection type, dosage, efficacy against what types of bacteria.
I think there are several important points to emphasize when using drugs to treat cattle
1) ALWAYS read the label
2) remember the withhold ONLY APPLIES if you follow the label directions exactly - so if you increase the dose, increase the frequency, change the route etc the withhold does not apply - the classic example is Banamine - if you give it IV (In the vein) the withhold is 4 days - if you give it under the skin or in the muscle the 4 day withhold does not apply and you can end up with a violative residue if you use 4 days....you could end up on the FDAs Red List (not a place you want to be)
3) if the drug has expired - especially the tetracyclines - do not use them
4) if you can't read the label don't use the drug
1) ALWAYS read the label
2) remember the withhold ONLY APPLIES if you follow the label directions exactly - so if you increase the dose, increase the frequency, change the route etc the withhold does not apply - the classic example is Banamine - if you give it IV (In the vein) the withhold is 4 days - if you give it under the skin or in the muscle the 4 day withhold does not apply and you can end up with a violative residue if you use 4 days....you could end up on the FDAs Red List (not a place you want to be)
3) if the drug has expired - especially the tetracyclines - do not use them
4) if you can't read the label don't use the drug
DL, Its been a couple of years since I switched from Nuflor to Nuflor Gold, but I thought my vet said that they put something in Nuflor Gold to extend the half life and make it stay in their system longer, and therefore it should be more effective. Is that correct? Is it worth paying the premium for Nuflor Gold?
Thanks
Thanks
HGC said:
HGC -the web sites are certainly not revealing about these 2 products - this is what I know but am hoping to get a human to get the "real scoop"
NUFLOR Injectable Solution is a solution of the synthetic antibiotic florfenicol. Each milliliter of sterile NUFLOR Injectable Solution contains 300 mg of florfenicol, 250 mg n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, 150 mg propylene glycol, and polyethylene glycol qs.
NUFLOR GOLD™ is an injectable solution of the synthetic antibiotic florfenicol. Each milliliter of sterile NUFLOR GOLD™ contains 300 mg of florfenicol, 300 mg of 2-pyrrolidone, and triacetin qs.
So both drugs contain 300 mg florfeniccol per ml - florfenicol is the antibiotic
It is my understanding that n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and 2-pyrrolidone, propylene glycol and triacetin are carriers - different carriers can change how a drug is metabolized -changing carriers means the drug has a different "formulation" so that means they have to do all the studies again
So the amount of antibiotic per ml is identical in these 2 drugs - but the carriers are different - how that influences the efficacy of the drugs is not clear to me
The other difference is the label
Nuflor is NOT labeled for pneumonia caused by Mycoplasma bovis. Nuflor Gold is labeled for M bovis and the web site says "It is a florfenicol antibiotic formulated to include M. bovis in its spectrum of antibacterial activity". I don't know that I understand how the carriers/solvents in Nuflor Gold would change the spectrum of activity - or put differently I don't know if both Nuflor and Nuflor Gold are effective vs M bovis but only the Gold is labeled for it.
The other label difference is that Nuflor is labeled for the treatment of foot rot (Nuflor Gold is not) and Nuflor is labeled for control of resp disease in high risk cattle (Nuflor Gold is not) -
Nuflor is labeled for intra muscular use but Nuflor Gold is not. The sub q dose for both drugs is the same but the meat with hold for Nuflor after sub q injection is 38 days but for Nuflor Gold is 44 days (suggesting to me that the Gold takes longer to exit the body). The half life for Nuflor was 18.3 with a range of 8.3 to 44 hours; they say the half life for Gold is 37.7 hours but they do not give the range and the graph looks (to me ) more like low 20 something hours
As an FYI - to get something on the label of a drug the company must do tests (spend $) so they need to see that spending the money for the labeled use will pay them back - so it may be that when Nuflor was first approved (back in the 90s I think) Mycoplasma was not a big cattle problem so they didn't seek a label for M bovis; however with the new formulation - and with the increasing problem of Mycoplasma pneumonia in cattle - they may have decided to go after that label for Nuflor Gold but not spend the money to add that to the label of Nuflor
I don't know if this is simply a case of the label being different (ie drug companies have to jump through hoops to get something on the label) or if there is really a difference between the 2 drugs - the data presented by the company does not make comparison easy - my suspicion is that there is very little difference between the 2 drugs but that there is a difference in the labels - but I will find out
RCF Farms
Well-known member
I have use all the above except draxin, I use Bytril and it works great for me. Saved a few calves with it.
bpwagner115
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13
Interesting post. We just had this conversation with our vet this week as we are weaning our calves. I had always heard that Draxxin was the BEST but our vet said that he preferred to use Draxxin only as a precautionary because it lasts much longer than Micotil and Nuflor, however is slower to take action. He said for calves that are already sick, Nuflor (Resflor) and Micotil are better options because they begin working within hours and Draxxin can take a day or longer before you see improvement. I also found the comment about Micotil hitting a blood vessel intersting as we have used Micotil a number of times already this fall. Whenever I have seen vet's give the injection of Micotil it has been given under the skin overing the ribs, not in the neck. Is it possible that is to avoid injecting into blood vessel(s)? I would guess that is the reason.
bpwagner115 said:
Not entirely sure that is true - peak plasma concentrations of Draxxin are seen generally 15 minutes after administration and therapeutic levels of Nuflor occur within 30 min - so basically they both start acting quickly - the longer duration of action of Draxxin is related to the large volume of distribution (ie it goes basically everywhere) - half life in plasma is 2.8 days while in lung it is 8.8 days - meaning that the concentration of drug in the lung sufficient to work on the bugs is long.
BTW you may already know but Resflor is Nuflor (florfenicol) and Banamine (flunixin) not just Nuflor. Nuflor Gold is florfenicol with a different carrier than Nuflor.
bpwagner115
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13
I really have nothing to back up my statements, it was just a conversation had between the vet and myself. I did find this research study interesting....
http://www.nuflorgold.com/product/NuflorGoldVsDraxxin.aspx
http://www.nuflorgold.com/product/NuflorGoldVsDraxxin.aspx
bpwagner115 said:
Yeah, I found the study interesting too - and I will admit that based on some previous experiences I view all research done by company that makes and promotes a product or by a university funded by a company that has an interest in a product with a huge grain of salt and a large amount of skepticism (yea I am a cynic
Most of us who have cow/calf or show calves would not treat incoming animals with Excede - while the results of this study may apply to feed yard heifer calves in the Texas panhandle who received metaphylaxis with Excede working with your vet and figuring out what is best for your (generic your) cattle and your system is probably the best approach
DL said:
Some of the differences of opinions by vets and producers comes from our different backgrounds. In backgrounding operations that deal with "high risk" (co mingled, sale barn, high stress) calves-most receiving regimens include a preventive antibiotic. Most, including myself, think this is where Draxxin really shines. As a treatment, it has not been that effective for us and most of the other operations our vet consults with. I haven't seen data on it, as most studies for the newest drugs are in backgrounding and feedlot scenarios because they are the operations that use the lion's share of these drugs, but I'm sure all of the drugs covered in this thread are very effective in the treatment of BRD in a cow/calf weaned calf scenario. These calves (as a group) tend to be less stressed and have better immune systems which puts them in a better position to respond to the drug you and your vet decide to use.
