BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) affects nearly 20% of all dogs greater than one year of age. Clinical signs include pain, discomfort, lameness, and ultimately lead to disability. Although there is currently no known cure, there are many therapeutic options that can slow the progression and alleviate the associated signs. There is ample supportive evidence demonstrating the efficaciousness of carprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, in managing signs of OA. Since the approval of the pioneer product (Rimadyl®, Zoetis; Kalamazoo, Michigan), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has assented to several other generic, bioequivalent products. The objective of this 2 × 2 complete cross-over design was to assess the acceptance of two bioequivalent carprofen liver-flavored chewable tablets (containing 25 mg carprofen), Rimadyl® and Carprieve® (Norbrook Laboratories Limited; Newry, Northern Ireland) in 37 healthy purpose-bred dogs.ResultsOverall, 73.0% (27/37) and 70.3% (26/37) of dogs voluntarily accepted Rimadyl® and Carprieve®, respectively. Considering acceptability tests paired by individual dog, 64.9% of dogs (n = 24) voluntarily accepted both Rimadyl® and Carprieve® chewable tablets whereas 21.6% (8) of dogs denied or partially accepted both products offered. Three dogs (8.1%) fully accepted Rimadyl® but did not accept Carprieve®. Conversely, two dogs (5.4%) fully accepted Carprieve® but did not accept Rimadyl®. Canine acceptability did not significantly differ between Carprieve® and Rimadyl® carprofen chewable tablets (P = 0.65).ConclusionsUtilizing a 2 × 2 complete cross-over design, this study provides evidence that canine acceptability of a single-dose did not differ between Carprieve® and Rimadyl® chewable tablets.

Consumer interest in production agriculture has prompted the beef industry to develop tools to increase accountability of producers for animal management practices. The Beef Quality Assurance Feedyard Assessment, developed by veterinarians, animal scientists, and production specialists, was used to objectively evaluate key areas of beef cattle production such as animal handling, antimicrobial residue avoidance, and cattle comfort in 56 Kansas feedyards. During the assessment, management protocols were reviewed, facilities and pens were inspected, and cattle handling practices were observed. Of the 56 feedyards, 19 maintained complete and current documentation of Best Management Practices for all management protocols required by the assessment. During assessment of cattle handling practices, 78.6% of feedyards met requirements for an Acceptable score for all measured criteria. An electric prod was used on only 4.0% of cattle during processing. In addition, 83.0% of feedyards scored Acceptable for all stocking rate, feed bunk, water tank, and mud score standards.