Evaluation of Domperidone Dosages and Delivery Methods for the Treatment of Fescue Toxicosis in Beef Heifers 11
© 2008 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists. The objective of this study was to develop a practical method of domperidone delivery to ameliorate fescue toxicosis. Experiment 1 used heifers assigned to 7 treatment groups (n = 6 each): positive control (0.44 mg domperidone/ kg BW daily s.c. for 9 d), negative control, and 0.22, 0.44, 0.88, and 1.76 mg domperidone/kg BW per os daily for 9 d, or a 3 g domperidone i.m. injection. Blood was collected every third day for 24 d. Domperidone concentrations in the 0.88 and 1.76 mg/kg BW treatments and the i.m. treatment were greater than positive control (P < 0.05) on d 3. None of the oral treatments were greater than the positive control on subsequent days. Between d 6 and 24, no oral treatments differed from the negative control except for the 1.76 mg/kg of BW treatment on d 9. The i.m. formulation increased domperidone when compared with the negative and positive controls (P < 0.05) on d 3 through d 21. Experiment 2 evaluated the i.m. injection protocol on performance. Heifers were assigned to control (n = 15) or i.m. domperidone (n = 15) treatments and grazed endophyte- infected fescue paddocks. Blood was sampled weekly and analyzed for progesterone and prolactin concentrations. Controls had reduced BW gains (P < 0.001) and BCS (P < 0.05) and elevated rectal temperatures (P < 0.05) compared with treated heifers. Domperidone treatment interacted with day on affecting prolactin (P < 0.0001) and progesterone (P < 0.0001). Intramuscular delivery of domperidone is an effective method for relieving fescue toxicosis.
Publication Source (Journal or Book title)
Professional Animal Scientist
Jones, K., Schulze, J., Strickland, J., Cross, D., Burns, P., Gilley, R., Bassoo, E., Hart, K., Thompson, D., & King, S. (2008). Evaluation of Domperidone Dosages and Delivery Methods for the Treatment of Fescue Toxicosis in Beef Heifers 11. Professional Animal Scientist, 24 (4), 342-348. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30865-2