Editorial Blog

The Importance of Waiting: 4-H Teaches That Some Things Can't Be Rushed

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:57:37 GMT

As I watched my daughter arrange and rearrange her misshapen pumpkins on our porch, I couldn’t help but smile. In her eyes they were all absolutely perfect because she grew them, she nurtured them, she discovered them, she watched them, she waited for them and she loved them.

She didn’t see the blemishes and imperfections.

Her pumpkins were part of a small garden that she planted this year behind our barn for her 4-H Cloverbuds project. Cloverbuds is essentially the “warm-up” for 4-H. It gives young kids a chance to learn about the organization, discover what it means to be a 4-H member and hopefully get enticed to continue on.

In her 6-year-old mind, her pumpkin project was about those misshapen pumpkins on our porch. But I know that the true growth was in the journey to that beautiful display on our porch – the hours she spent preparing the soil, planting the seeds, watering the seeds and waiting.

(Farm Journal)

Waiting is a hard lesson to learn. It’s a lesson that seems more elusive than ever in our instant gratification world. I appreciate that 4-H has taught our kids the importance of waiting and observing what they learn through that time.

Whether it’s waiting on a garden to grow or feeding an animal to market weight, 4-H has taught our kids that you can’t rush some things, but the end result is worth the wait. They discover the joy of expectation, of hope for what’s to come.

I think that’s one of the understated benefits of 4-H.

Life doesn’t always roll out just like you expect. Sometimes we get stuck waiting for something we want to happen. Believe me, I’ve been learning and relearning that lesson since I was in 4-H.

In celebration of National 4-H Week, let me know how 4-H has benefited your life. Email me your reflections of imperfect pumpkins and more at jshike@farmjournal.com.

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

5 Things No One Tells You About 4-H

4-H and FFA Members Lend Talents to COVID-19 Fight

Overhe(a)rd: Screenhouses and the State of State Fairs

#FarmON Benefit Concert Showcases 4-H and America’s Farm Families

A Little Peace in the Struggle

New Year, Same Issue

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:42 GMT

As we enter a new year and a new decade, antibiotic stewardship remains on the top of issues affecting food-animal veterinarians. Continued public pressure, along with regulatory actions, will drive ongoing change, with more emphasis on preventive care and more veterinarian oversight of antibiotic use.

In September 2019, FDA released draft guidance for industry (GFI) 263, outlining a process for bringing remaining approved animal drugs containing antimicrobials of human medical importance under the oversight of licensed veterinarians, changing the approved marketing status from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx). This would include dosage forms such as injectable or intra-mammary antibiotic products now available OTC.

The action builds on the earlier GFI 213, which eliminated performance claims from labels for medically important antibiotics and brought purchase of most medicated feeds under the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD).

Also, by September 2020, FDA plans to issue a draft strategy to ensure that all medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed or drinking water of food-producing animals have an appropriately targeted duration of use.

While the industry has made progress in antibiotic stewardship, research shows ample opportunity for further improvement, especially in the eyes of skeptical consumers.

The CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report for example, shows an 18% reduction in annual antibiotic-resistance (AR) associated deaths since 2013. Even so, the report notes AR bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year.

In December, the FDA released its 2018 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, which showed domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials increased 9% between 2017 and 2018. Activists and consumer media focused their attention on the increase, even though 2018 is the second-lowest year on record, while 2017 was the lowest. Sales in 2018 were down 21 percent since 2009, the first year of reporting, and down 38 percent since 2015, the peak year of sales and distribution.

While the report does not evaluate reasons behind the year-to-year increase, it seems plausible that 2018 brought a correction or readjustment following a major disruption. Implementation of the VFD rule in 2017 undoubtedly reduced sales, possibly below the “natural” demand level, because of unfamiliarity with the rule and VFD process among producers and veterinarians. Also, sales during 2016 likely reflect effects of some producers stockpiling products ahead of the new rules, making the 2017 decline more dramatic. Sales of tetracyclines accounted for much of the increase from 2017 to 2018, further indicating that comfort with the VFD rules returned some lost demand to the market.

Nevertheless, activists and consumers see the increase and perceive the industry is moving in the wrong direction. Looking ahead, we’ll need to practice and publicize efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship while protecting animal health, welfare, food safety and producer profitability. Veterinarians are best qualified and positioned to address these challenges, and I believe you can make it happen.

For more on this issue, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Antimicrobial Sales Post Moderate Increase in 2018

NARMS Releases Latest Report on Antimicrobial Resistance Trends

Good and Bad News in CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report

Princeton Study: Antibiotic Resistance Increasing Globally

FDA Releases Draft GFI to End OTC Sales of Most Animal Antibiotics

Germaphobes: Take Notice

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:34 GMT

Generally speaking, farm kids just seem healthier than their city cousins. Time outdoors, physical chores, fresh foods and clean air probably contribute, but scientists in recent years have identified and studied another critical difference – the gut microbiome and its associations with immunity.

Several studies have shown that farm kids, with regular exposure to livestock, develop a more diverse population of microbes in their gastro-intestinal (GI) tract compared to city kids who live in more sterile environments. Recently, researchers from the Ohio State University conducted a trial comparing babies from Amish farms with babies from urban households, and found evidence that the more diverse microbiome in the farm kids might help protect them from respiratory conditions such as asthma and allergies later in life. They also demonstrated that germ-free piglets can work as models for testing relationships between microbial populations and immune-system development.

The study was published this month in the journal Frontiers in Immunology .

The research team collected fecal samples from 10 Ohio babies, ranging from about six months to one year of age. Five of the babies lived on Amish farms with livestock, while the other five lived in the Ohio town of Wooster, and had no known contact with livestock.

They found that the Amish infants had greater species richness compared with the non-Amish infants’ microbiota, with higher populations of some microbe genera with known benefits to the immune system.

In a second stage of the study, the researchers transplanted the fecal microbiotas of the Amish and the non-Amish infants into germ-free (Gf) piglets. They found the diversity and structure of the microbiota in the transplanted piglets remained similar at phylum level but not at the genus level. “Some of the colonized bacterial genera were correlated with the frequency of important lymphoid and myeloid immune cells in the ileal submucosa and mesenteric lymph nodes (MLN), both important for mucosal immune maturation,” the authors note.

Overall, the researchers say the study demonstrated that transplantation of diverse IFM into germ-free piglets largely recapitulates the differences in gut microbiota structure between rural (Amish) and urban (non-Amish) infants. Thus, fecal microbiota transplantation to germ-free piglets could be a useful large animal model system for elucidating the impact of gut microbiota on the mucosal immune system development.

At a more basic level, the study provides further evidence that early exposure to a diversity of microbes associated with livestock could benefit the long-term health of farm kids.

“Good hygiene is important, but from the perspective of our immune systems, a sanitized environment robs our immune systems of the opportunity to be educated by microbe, says co-author Zhongtang Yu, a professor of microbiology in Ohio State’s Department of Animal Sciences and a member of the university’s Food Innovation Center.

Read the full report from Frontiers in Immunology .

For more on the microbiome and its relationship with immunity, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Dissecting the Microbiome

Nursing Could Benefit Microbiome, Vaccine Response

Encourage the “Good Bugs”

We Need a National Strategy for CWD

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:14 GMT

Since Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) first emerged in captive deer in Colorado in the 1960s, the prion disease has spread to at least 26 states, three Canadian provinces and several countries in Europe. While the fatal disease continues to spread, fears that it could cross species barriers to affect livestock or humans have, so far, not come to fruition.

Control measures for CWD have mostly evolved on a state-by-state basis, with the exception of some broader controls over movement of captive cervids. The patchwork of state policies and control measures is understandable, with a lack of consensus or scientific evidence to support their efficacy. Various states have experimented with culling, larger quotas for recreational hunters, restrictions on transport of carcasses or venison and tighter biosecurity regulations in the captive cervid industry. States generally have tried to balance the economic contributions of recreational hunting and deer farming with population control and other strategies.

Now though, it is time for a national strategy for the long-term health of wild and captive cervids, reduced risk of disease in livestock, and ultimately, to protect public health.

Recently, a team of experts in public health, wildlife diseases, prion research and laboratory diagnosis developed a report calling for a comprehensive national strategy to address the risks associated with CWD.

The multi-discipline team included representatives from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, the Prion Research Center at Colorado State University; the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center at Case Western Reserve University; and the Minnesota Department of Health .

Their report was recently published in the journal mBio by the American Society for Microbiology.

Their recommendations include:

Invest in CWD research

We need research into continued improvements in diagnostic testing for lower costs, faster results and reduced risk of cross-contamination in processing plants. The authors also note that research investment can help answer questions regarding disease pathways and mechanisms, including risk of transmission between cervids and the potential threat to humans. In natural settings, CWD has not been found in animals other than deer, elk and other cervids, but laboratory tests suggest that evolving strains of the causative prions could cross species barriers and affect other animals, including primates. Finally, research is needed on development of effective vaccines or treatments to protect cervids and potentially decrease CWD spread.

Enhance mandatory CWD cervid testing

Requirements for CWD testing in hunter-killed cervids vary widely between states and zones within states. In many cases, testing is voluntary and statistics suggest a significant number of CWD-positive animals are butchered for human consumption. The authors argue that mandatory testing of killed or dead cervids in all areas of endemicity and establishing associated monitoring systems that can be shared across states would provide more accurate data for wildlife managers and public policy makers, and also reduce human consumption of meat from CWD-positive animals.

Improve cervid management

Without comprehensive, effective changes in wildlife management and the captive cervid industry, the nearly $40 billion annual contribution of wild cervid hunting in the United States is under threat, the authors say. They note that the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) has published the best CWD management practices based on current science. The document addresses movement of live cervids, carcass disposal, and feeding/baiting, and the authors say states should implement the recommendations as soon as possible, backed by sufficient resources. “Science-based and enforced regulation of captive cervid facilities is essential to prevent transmission of CWD within such herds and subsequently reduce risk of transmission to wildlife populations,” they say.

The group concludes that available data indicate the incidence of CWD in cervids is increasing and the potential exists for transmission to humans and subsequent human disease. Research to better understand potential risk to humans, along with better public-health measures to prevent human exposure could reduce the likelihood of human cases.

Read the full report from mBio .

For more on CWD and prion research, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Progress on prions

Chronic Wasting Disease: Don’t Panic, but Remain Vigilant

Wisconsin Researchers Find CWD in Soil Around Mineral Licks

APHIS Finalizes CWD Herd Certification Program Standards

Cattle Resist CWD in Long-Term Trial

Soil Type Could Affect Infectivity of CWD Prions

New FDA Guidance Clarifies Labeling for Drugs Used in Feed

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:11 GMT

The FDA has issued a new Guidance for Industry (GFI #181), which provides content and format regulations for the representative “Blue Bird” labeling to be used for Type B and Type C medicated feeds.

Drug manufacturers typically produce “Type A medicated articles,” which are intended solely for use in the manufacture of another Type A medicated article or in the manufacture of Type B or Type C medicated feed. Type B medicated feed is intended solely for the manufacture of other medicated feeds (Type B or Type C) and therefore it cannot be fed as is without being further diluted to Type C medicated feed.

According to FDA, Type C medicated feed is intended as the complete feed for the animal or may be fed ‘top dressed’ (added on top of usual ration) or offered ‘free choice’ in conjunction with other animal feed. It is manufactured by diluting a Type A medicated article, a Type B medicated feed, or another Type C medicated feed.

In their new animal drug applications, drug sponsors submit two labeling components. The first includes directions for the manufacture and use of finished feeds for all conditions for which the new animal drug is intended. The second labeling component provides representative labeling proposed to be used for the Type B and Type C medicated feeds containing the new animal drug. GFI #181 provides recommendations on the content and format of the representative Blue Bird labeling proposed to be used for Type B and Type C medicated feeds only. It does not address the labeling of Type A medicated articles.

The guidance provides sample templates for Blue Bird labels, and lists what types of information should be included within the label contents under headings such as the product name, indications for use, active drug ingredients, guaranteed analysis, other ingredients, feeding directions, cautions, warnings and other information.

View the full text of GFI #181 here .

For more information on drug labeling for medicated feeds, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

Understanding Free-Choice and Hand-Fed Feeds Which Include Chlortetracycline

FDA Clarifies Medicated-Feed Rules for Anaplasmosis

FDA issues final rule categorizing animal drugs used in medicated feeds

PEW Supports FDA’s Biomass Method for Monitoring Antibiotic Use

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:25:59 GMT

The PEW Charitable Trusts, long involved in public health and antibiotics policy, encourages the FDA to follow through with its plans to adopt a “biomass method” for measuring and analyzing antibiotic use in food animals.

The FDA proposed adoption of the biomass method in 2017. The animal biomass adjustment uses animal population estimates to provide context for antibiotic sales data, helping explain trends and fluctuations in antibiotic use by accounting for differences or changes in animal populations, such as animal life span, species and production class differences or management practices. The current process reports antibiotic sales, with estimates of use in major food-animal species, but lacks details needed to fully evaluate trends.

According to PEW, FDA has not taken any concrete action to finalize the proposal, even though its five-year plan identifies initiating a biomass method by 2021 as an immediate priority. In an issue statement this week, PEW addresses four concerns over the plan that emerged in public comments following the FDA’s 2017 proposal. The report includes PEW resolutions for addressing each issue, along with specific points on how the biomass method could provide more useful data in the battle against antibiotic resistance.

Issue 1: Antibiotic sales data provide imperfect insights on actual antibiotic use.

Resolution: Antibiotic sales data provide valuable insights into use trends, however, Pew acknowledges the data’s limitations and recognizes the importance of ensuring appropriate analysis and interpretation.

While PEW acknowledges data can be imperfect, the report argues biomass-adjusted sales data are important for three key reasons:

Sales data are well established, useful, and the only publicly available and nationally representative source to estimate total antibiotic use in U.S. food animal production.

Biomass-adjusted sales data provide meaningful insight into antibiotic consumption in animals—and are less likely to be misinterpreted—than sales data alone.

Sales data collection complements, rather than precludes, the collection of actual antibiotic use data.

Issue 2: FDA’s proposed approach for calculating biomass is not sufficiently described, lacks transparency, and may slightly overestimate the size of the animal population.

Resolution: Pew agrees that FDA should provide additional details about the proposed biomass calculation and align the method with existing ones to the extent feasible, although ultimately, any one of the proposed methods may be acceptable as long as it is implemented appropriately and consistently used to track changes.

PEW believes the technical issues that stakeholders raised should not detract FDA from swiftly finalizing the biomass method for three key reasons:

Several countries and organizations have successfully established biomass adjustments specific to their unique needs (e.g., comparisons across countries or over time) and country situation, and there is value in developing a U.S.-specific method.

The FDA method can be transparently described and largely aligned with existing methods.

A comparison of trends is possible with any of the proposed or established methodological choices.

Issue 3: Inappropriate comparisons with biomass-adjusted sales estimates from other countries may lead to inappropriate conclusions about U.S. antibiotic use.

Resolution: Pew acknowledges the potential risk of inappropriate comparisons, including across different countries and geographic regions.

PEW believes these challenges should not deter FDA from finalizing the biomass adjustment method for three key reasons:

Initiatives are underway to find appropriate approaches for comparing data from different countries or regions.

FDA has a long history of taking steps to limit data misinterpretation risks.

Biomass adjustments actually reduce the risk of inappropriate country-to-country comparisons.

Issue 4: Finalizing and using the biomass adjustment method will place undue scrutiny on antibiotic use in livestock

Resolution: Considerably more data is already available on antibiotic use in human medicine than in animal agriculture.

PEW points out that hospitals are required to report hospital-acquired infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), and approximately 800 hospitals nationwide also voluntarily report antibiotic use, based on pharmacy data, to NHSN.

PEW concludes that while biomass-adjusted sales data have limitations, stakeholders will benefit from an improved understanding of antibiotic use.

Read the full report from the PEW Charitable Trusts.

For more on monitoring antibiotic use and resistance trends, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

USDA Blueprint Sets Goals for Animal Genome Research

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:25:39 GMT

When a technology advances as quickly as genomics has in recent years, yesterday’s goals begin to look like nostalgia. And a review of the dramatic progress in genomic-enhanced selection of livestock over the past decade, we see we’ve just scratched the surface of its potential.

Back in 2008, the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) published the “Blueprint for USDA Efforts in Agricultural Animal Genomics 2008–2017,” which served as a guiding document for research and funding in animal genomics. Since then, scientists have achieved many of the original goals, while some others require more research. Others dropped off the priority list as breakthroughs in science and technology revealed new paths of exploration and allowed pursuit of newer goals.

As the old blueprint expired, USDA hosted a scientific workshop in 2017 to update genomic research goals for the next decade. Recently, the consortium of scientists from USDA and several universities published their blueprint, titled “ Genome to Phenome: Improving Animal Health, Production, and Well-Being – A New USDA Blueprint for Animal Genome Research 2018–2027 ,” in the journal Frontiers in Genetics.

The authors note that the phrase “genome to phenome” describes the connection and causation between the genetic makeup of an animal (genome) and the totality of all phenotypes, or the observable physical or physiological traits or characteristics (phenome). For genomic tools to reach their full potential for improving animal productivity, they note, we will need a better understanding of the structure and function of animal genomes and how they interact with non-genetic components of production systems such as nutrition and environment.

Also over the past decade, gene-editing technologies have emerged with potential to facilitate identification of causal genetic variation and progress toward the understanding of genome biology needed to dramatically expand capacity to characterize and measure phenomes.

Like the earlier blueprint, the new plan focuses on three components of the overall research framework: science to practice, discovery science, and infrastructure.

Within that framework, the researchers identified specific research priorities and outlined how each can help address four overarching goals for animal production:

Providing Nutritious Food for a Growing Human Population

Feed the growing human population, encompassing global food security, improving rural economies and development, increasing productivity of agricultural enterprise and exports of agricultural products, and reducing trade deficits.

Improving Sustainability of Animal Agriculture

Improve environmental sustainability (reduce land and water usage, balance the use of antibiotics for animal health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions), economic sustainability (consumer affordability and farmer profitability), and preserve germplasm and genetic diversity.

Increasing Animal Fitness and Improving Animal Welfare

Improve animal fitness through adaptation to local and regional conditions (e.g., altitude), biotic and abiotic stresses such as climate change, diseases and pests, and optimizing the microbiome.

Meeting Consumer Needs and Choices

Enable consumer choices such as cultural or traditional foods, healthy choices (lean and tender meat products), nutritional enhancements, and food raised through desired farming practices (i.e., organic, no antibiotics ever).

The research priorities include:

Implementing Genome Science into Animal Production
Optimizing Animal Production through Precision Breeding and Management
Understanding Genome Biology to Accelerate Genetic Improvement of Economically Important Traits
Reducing the Effects of Animal Diseases
Applying Precision Agriculture Technologies to Animal Phenotyping
Applying Precision Agriculture Technologies to Animal Phenotyping
Training the Next Generation of Animal Scientists
Developing Advanced Genomic Tools, Technologies, and Resources for Agricultural Animals
Creating Big Data Tools and Infrastructure for Animal Production
Advancing Biotechnology to Improve the Sustainability and Efficiency of Animal Production
Characterizing and Preserving Genetic Diversity for the Future of Animal Production

In their conclusions, the authors note that the 2008 Blueprint facilitated novel scientific discoveries, some of which were implemented into commercial production and led to returns that far exceeded investment costs. The 2018 Blueprint, they say, will “continue this trajectory based on new technologies, new insights into animal biology, and new genome-enabled strategies that improve various aspects of production. Ultimately, animal genome technologies will become part of mainstream agricultural production strategies used to improve animal health, well-being, production efficiency, and product quality in ways that meet the demands of growing global populations.”

See the full report from Frontiers in Genetics .

For more on genomics and genetic technologies, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Learn About Genome Editing in Animals

BioGenome: Biology’s Moonshot Benefits Ag Science

Gene Editing: Potential and Perceptions

Say it again: Three Percent!

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:22:45 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Once more, an extensive life cycle analysis (LCA) of the U.S. beef industry shows a relatively low contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other aspects of resource conservation. The study, led by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), helps establish baseline measures the U.S. beef industry can use to explore ways of reducing its environmental footprint and improve sustainability. Their data, showing beef’s contributions to U.S. GHG emissions at just over 3 % of the total, remain consistent with other credible studies.

The researchers, with support from the Beef Checkoff and participation from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, began this LCA in 2013. They published the first of two sets of results, titled “Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States,” in the January 2019 issue of the journal Agricultural Systems .

The researchers surveyed and visited farms, ranches and feedlots across seven U.S. regions to determine common practices and characteristics of cattle production. They combined those data with other information sources to create about 150 representative production systems throughout the country, which were simulated with the Integrated Farm System Model using local soil and climate data. In the next phase, they’ll merge the farm-gate assessments with post farm-gate data from packing, processing, distribution, retail, consumption and waste handling to produce a full LCA of U.S. beef. They describe the study as the most detailed and comprehensive, study conducted to date to provide baseline measures for the sustainability of U.S. beef.

Key results of this phase of the study include:

The seven regions’ combined beef cattle production accounted for 3.3 % of all U.S. GHG emissions (By comparison, transportation and electricity generation together made up 56 % of the total in 2016 and agriculture in general 9 %).
Fossil energy (for example, fuel) use in cattle production accounted for less than 1 % of the total consumed nationally.
Cattle only consumed 2.6 pounds of grain per pound of beef cut weight (or, butchered carcass weight), which was comparable to pork and poultry.
Total feed consumption for U.S. beef cattle averages about 82% forage, 11% grain and 7% by-product and waste-product feeds. This indicates that 10 to 15% of the feed consumed in beef production comes from sources that might be available for human consumption.
Beef operations in the Northwest and Southern Plains had the highest total water use (60 % combined) of the seven regions analyzed. Irrigating crops to produce feed for cattle accounted for 96 % of total water use across all the regions.

Beef production does, of course, involve environmental impacts. The report suggests opportunities for improvement, particularly in water use and reactive nitrogen losses. Water use, not surprisingly, is highest in the arid West, which also houses some of the largest cattle populations. Across the country, irrigation for forage and feed crops accounts for the bulk of water use associated with beef production. Advancements in irrigation technology, plant genetics and management practices could reduce our reliance on irrigation over time.

U.S. beef production accounts for about 15 % of total reactive nitrogen losses, mainly in the form of ammonia. This can contribute to smog, acid rain and algal blooms, and poses a potential public-health concern. Waste management technologies and practices in confinement operations can help capture more nutrients for crop production and reduce ammonia emissions into the atmosphere.

The purpose of the analysis wasn’t to identify the top-performing regions or most efficient types of operations, says ARS agricultural engineer and lead researcher Alan Rotz, but rather to systematically measure the use of fuel, feed, forage, electricity, water, fertilizer and other inputs to raise beef cattle throughout the country—from birth to slaughter. “We found that the greenhouse gas emissions in our analysis were not all that different from what other credible studies had shown and were not a significant contributor to long-term global warming,” he adds.

Of course, these days, people find it easy to dismiss scientific data and other evidence that do not mesh with their ideology. They simply label them as “fake news” and move on.

Access the full report from Agricultural Systems .

For related information on beef production’s environmental footprint and sustainability, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Put Sustainability in Perspective

How to Best Communicate Sustainability?

New Technologies Contribute to Livestock Sustainability

Resistance Grows Among Zoonotic Pathogens

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:22:13 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Zoonotic diseases, such as campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis, continue to build resistance against common antimicrobial drugs, according to a new report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The report, titled “ The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017 ,” is available online. While several recent reports indicate reductions in antimicrobial use in food animals in the United States and internationally, the veterinary and human-health communities still have work to do in slowing the emergence of resistance in pathogen populations, particularly those that can spread between animals and people.

The joint report presents data collected from 28 EU Member States from humans, pigs and calves under one year of age. Noting a need for adopting a One Health approach, the authors say the report confirms the rise in antibiotic resistance already identified in previous years.

Member countries collected and reported data regarding Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates from humans and fattening pigs, and also on indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening pigs and calves under one year of age and meat derived from those animals. Some countries also reported data on the occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in animals and food, and in some cases, the antimicrobial susceptibility of MRSA isolates.

According to the report, which refers to 2017 data, resistance to fluoroquinolones (such as ciprofloxacin) is so high in Campylobacter bacteria in some countries that these antimicrobials no longer work for the treatment of severe campylobacteriosis cases.

Most countries reported that Salmonella in humans is increasingly resistant to fluoroquinolones. Multidrug resistance (resistance to three or more antimicrobials) is high in Salmonella found in humans (28.3%) and animals, particularly in S. Typhimurium.

For Campylobacter, the report documents high to extremely high proportions of bacteria found to be resistant to ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines. However, combined resistance to critically important antimicrobials was very low to low in Salmonella and Campylobacter from humans and animals and in indicator E. coli from animals.

Vytenis Andriukaitis, EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, says the report “should ring, again, alarm bells.” However, he adds that ambitious national policies in some countries limiting antimicrobial use have led to a decrease of antimicrobial resistance. “So before the alarm bells become a deafening siren, let’s make sure that we increasingly act all together, in every country and across the public health, animal health and environment sectors under the One Health approach umbrella.”

See the full report from the ECDC .

For more on resistance and antimicrobial sales trends, see these articles from BovineVetOnline.com:

Antibiotic Stewardship: FDA Cites Progress

OIE Report Shows Global Progress on Use of Antibiotics in Animals

Tetracycline Pilot Project Finds Six Positives in 2018 Fiscal Year

"And Now for Something Completely Different"

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:21:15 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Remember that tagline from Monty Python’s Flying Circus? While we won’t achieve the level of “different” as Monty Python, our entire editorial group at Farm Journal have, over the past few weeks, delved into a topic new to us and many of our readers: Cannabis.

Our editorial team has developed a comprehensive package of content focused on Cannabis and its potential across U.S. agriculture. The series, with a wealth of online and print content, covers opportunities and barriers for farmers growing hemp or marijuana, for livestock producers feeding Cannabis byproducts and for Bovine Veterinarian of course, potential applications of Cannabis products for cattle health and performance .

Products containing cannabidiol (CBD) have, within just the past few years, become available and seen wide use for treating chronic conditions in companion animals (and humans). The 2018 farm bill makes hemp production legal nationwide. It will take some time for markets to develop and for farmers to adjust to demand signals, but we’ll likely see availability of cannabis products and byproducts explode in coming years.

Limited research suggests cannabis products including CBD, and the better-known psychoactive cannabinoid THC, might help relieve stress in cattle, improve feed intake and benefit reproduction. But, as you all know, the regulatory standards and processes for drugs or supplements used in food animals differ considerably from those for dogs and cats. We’ll need numerous clinical trials to determine safety and efficacy of these substances before the FDA can approve their use in food animals. Then producers and veterinarians will need solid data demonstrating cost-effectiveness for any applications of cannabis products in cattle, whether for targeted treatments or for herd-wide performance enhancement.

In developing our Cannabis content, conversations with livestock producers and veterinarians, and a Farm Journal reader survey, suggest a high level of curiosity and cautious open-mindedness regarding the topic. In the upcoming March issue of Bovine Veterinarian, our panel of veterinary students and recent DVM graduates suggest similar attitudes – they want to see the evidence – but if cannabis products work and provide safe, cost-effective benefits, they’re open to using or recommending them.

In any case, society’s attitudes toward cannabis are evolving rapidly away from the traditional “stoner” imagery toward greater acceptance of legitimate medicinal uses. Naturally, some proponents express unrealistic optimism, believing CBD or THC can cure virtually anything. And some opponents still consider Cannabis an evil weed that will lead to nothing but ruin.

Reality probably rests somewhere between. If continued research demonstrates these products can provide improvements in animal well-being, health or performance, and if production brings prices to cost-effective levels, we could see emergence of a major new trend.

Consumers clearly favor use of more “natural” products in livestock production, and small improvements in production efficiency, health and welfare add up. Cannabis might, or might not, play a role in addressing those goals. So, please have a look at our cannabis coverage and let us know what you think. We’ll continue to monitor the issue and keep you informed.

For more on this topic, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

Visit BovineVetOnline.com for ongoing overage of Cannabis in U.S. agriculture from the Farm Journal editorial team.

Headed in the Right Direction

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:19:34 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

U.S. sales of medically important antimicrobials for use in food animals dropped considerably last year according to the latest summary report from the FDA. The decline in 2017 accelerated a trend that began in 2016. According to FDA data, sales of these products peaked during 2015.

The downward trend comes as no accident, as 2017 was the first full year for implementation of the FDA’s Guidance for Industry 213, which eliminated performance or production claims from medically important antimicrobials used in food animals.

The new VFD rules, which placed access to medically important antimicrobials used in feed under the oversight of veterinarians, likely shifted producers away from some routine antimicrobial purchases and uses.

According to the 2017 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals , sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials decreased 33 percent decline between 2016 and 2017, 41 percent since 2015 (peak year of sales/distribution) and decreased 28 percent since the first year of reported sales in 2009.

The report also shows a slight decline in sales of non-medically important antimicrobials for food-animal use during 2017. Cattle account for the largest portion of non-medically important antimicrobial use – primarily ionophores used for production and/or therapeutic purposes. Sales of non-medically important antimicrobials for use in cattle dropped 1% during 2017, while those for use in hogs declined 7% and chickens by 13%.

In the report, the FDA notes that sales and distribution information does not represent actual use of the products. Veterinarians and animal producers could, for example, purchase drugs but not actually administer them to animals or administer them in later years.

Of the 2017 domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials for use in food-producing animals, tetracyclines accounted for the largest share at 64%, followed by penicillins at 12%, macrolides at 8%, sulfas at 5%, aminoglycosides at 5%, lincosamides at 3%, and cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones each for less than 1%. The authors estimate that 42% of the total was intended for use in cattle, 36% for use in swine, 12% for turkeys, 5% intended for chickens and an estimated 5% intended for use in other or unknown species.

Critics often point to the quantity of antimicrobials used in food animals relative to use in human medicine, but FDA cautions that such comparisons can be misleading. There are for example, approximately 320 million people in the U.S., compared with about 9 billion chickens are slaughtered annually. Also, the average adult human weighs 182 pounds, compared with a finished beef steer weighing about 1,363 pounds. Finally, different animal species metabolize drugs differently, meaning that some may require more of the drug to be effective, or may need to be treated for a longer period of time.

It also is important to note that non-medically important antimicrobials account for virtually half of total antimicrobial sales for food animals. According to the report, sales of medically important antimicrobials for food animals during 2017 totaled 5,559,212 kilograms, compared with 5,374,156 kilograms for non-medically important products – 50.8% and 49.2% respectively.

“These reductions are an indication that our ongoing efforts to support antimicrobial stewardship are having a significant impact,” says FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. “It’s important to note that this year’s report is the first to include sales/distribution data submitted after all medically important antimicrobial drugs administered to food-producing animals in their feed or water were no longer allowed to be used for growth promotion and could only be obtained through a veterinarian’s order. This sea change was a direct result of the roadmap that the FDA provided to animal drug sponsors in Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213 .”

For more about antibiotic stewardship, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

Veterinary Groups Issue Statement on Antimicrobial Use

Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Need for International Standards

Researchers Bust Antimicrobial-Resistance Myth

FDA Plan Previews the Future of Antimicrobial Stewardship

New Technologies Contribute to Livestock Sustainability

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:17:45 GMT

The greatest potential for improving sustainability of livestock production depends on scientific innovation to boost productivity while reducing environmental impacts. These advancements include genetic technologies for introducing efficiency, adaptation and health traits, along with feed ingredients or other tools for making livestock more environmentally friendly.

Several recent announcements illustrate these efforts and the potential for scientific advancements related to agricultural sustainability, including a new feed additive and biotechnology initiatives.

Beta Agonist for reducing Ammonia Emissions

Ammonia gas emissions from cattle waste cause odors, eutrophication in water and potential health risks in humans and animals, presenting an ongoing challenge for feedlots. Waste-management practices can help reduce ammonia emissions and now the FDA has approved Experior (lubabegron Type A medicated article), a beta-adrenergic agonist/antagonist drug that, when fed to beef cattle under specific conditions, results in less ammonia gas released as a by-product of their waste.

Research shows the new Elanco product reduces ammonia gas emissions from cattle manure in semi-controlled, enclosed-housing conditions. Because so many variables such as feed types, weather conditions and manure-handling practices affect ammonia emissions from commercial feedlots, the actual reduction from using Experior in field conditions is difficult to predict, FDA notes. In pre-approval research, the product did not have any effects, either positive or negative, on cattle gains or feed efficiency. The studies indicated that Experior is safe when administered to beef cattle, and beef from treated cattle is safe to eat. No withdrawal period is required when beef cattle are dosed under the FDA-approved conditions described on the label.

The FDA approved use of Experior in feed for beef steer and heifers fed in confinement for slaughter during the last 14 to 91 days on feed.

Read more about the product approval and labeling specifications from the FDA.

Biotech and Gene-Editing Plans

In other news related to agricultural sustainability, the FDA last week announced its Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan , with a primary goal of ensuring safety of plant and animal products of biotechnology while avoiding unnecessary barriers to future innovation.

The plan includes:

Veterinary Innovation Program (VIP) – The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) launched a pilot of the VIP to offer intensive technical and programmatic assistance to developers of certain innovative veterinary products, including animal biotechnology products. According to the FDA, the program includes a set of tools to guide sponsors through the regulatory process, options to develop alternative strategies for generating necessary evidence, pre-submission reviews of data packages, and cross-disciplinary and coordinated FDA review..
CVM Genome Editing in Animals Public Webinar – CVM, along with representatives from FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), will host a live-cast webinar on Dec. 3, 2018. The webinar represents FDA’s initial step in its communication strategy to help innovators understand how regulatory oversight applies to their products and supports safe and responsible innovation for public health. The webinar will outline FDA’s flexible, risk-based regulatory approach and current scientific evidence and regulatory science questions that are important for the agency’s decision-making for genome editing in animals. Online webinar registration is available, along with a process for submitting questions for FDA to address during the webinar.
Guidance Documents and Stakeholder Collaboration – Over the coming year, the FDA intends to issue several guidance documents in the area of animal biotechnology, including guidance for industry that clarifies FDA’s regulatory approach using risk-based categories for regulatory oversight. The FDA also intends to publish draft guidance on plant biotechnology for human and animal food use.
Biotechnology in food production can affect a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, food processors and consumers, both domestically and internationally, so FDA plans to coordinate its efforts with the EPA and USDA, while also supporting international

Coalition for Responsible Gene Editing in Agriculture

Industry stakeholders also are taking proactive steps toward dialog and adoption of gene-editing technology in food and agriculture, with the Center for Food Integrity (CFI), facilitating the Coalition for Responsible Gene Editing in Agriculture.

The coalition recently introduced a guide to engagement based on communication research findings and CFI’s trust model. It also includes links to additional communication resources. To develop the guide, the Coalition collaborated with universities, associations and others who have conducted research on consumer understanding and attitudes about gene editing. Common threads from this research, along with previous learnings about biotechnology acceptance, are the foundation of the material.

“Traditionally the assumption has been that if the science is sound and there is appropriate regulatory oversight, there will be social acceptance of innovation,” says CFI’s Chief Executive Officer Charlie Arnot. “But we know from experience and research that is not the way it works in today’s environment. What consumers want to know is that food producers care about the same things they do, like producing safe, affordable, nutritious food in a way that protects and sustains our environment.”

Learn more about the CFI Coalition for Responsible Gene Editing in Agriculture .

For agriculture to remain sustainable while feeding a growing global population, we’ll need scientific advancements toward greater production efficiency. At the same time, we need to build proactive messages to help ensure consumer acceptance as new technologies emerge.

Read more about technologies for reducing the environmental impact of cattle production in these articles from BovineVetOnline.

Reducing the Environmental Impact of Cows Waste

Probiotic Research Could Address Nitrate Poisoning and Methane

Feedyard Greenhouse Gas Study Analyzes Emissions Mitigation Factors

Perspective Pays in BSE Response

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:15:03 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Last week, the USDA confirmed a case of atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a Florida beef cow. The industry took notice and assessed the situation appropriately, while the consumer media, American consumers and our export partners responded with a collective shrug.

Very little coverage appeared in the U.S. news media, and the stories that did appear generally provided accurate information, noting that these atypical or sporadic cases occasionally appear spontaneously and have no association with feed-related “classical BSE,” which is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans. They also noted that the affected cow never entered the food supply.

Many of us recall the first U.S. case of BSE in December 2003 – the classical form in a Washington cow. That case, known as “the cow that stole Christmas,” halted virtually all our beef exports and it took more than a decade to rebuild our markets.

Looking back though, scientists, policy makers, educators and the beef industry have achieved a notable success story in dealing with BSE.

When BSE first appeared in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the disease and its causes were mysterious. By 1992, BSE was affecting approximately 30,000 cattle per year in the UK. Exports of live cattle and bovine meat and bone meal from the UK resulted in BSE spreading across Europe and worldwide. Around that same time, scientists discovered a link between vCJD in humans and consumption of beef products from BSE-infected cattle, especially products containing specific risk materials such as brain or spinal tissues.

Once scientists confirmed a link between feed ingredients and BSE, governments and the global beef industry acted quickly. In 1997, the FDA prohibited inclusion of mammalian protein in feed for cattle and other ruminants, and in 2009 the FDA strengthened the feed ban with prohibition of high risk tissue materials in all animal feed. Other countries took similar actions.

With those policies in place, the prevalence of classical BSE dropped dramatically – almost to zero. Incidence of vCJD followed a similar trend, dropping to near zero as classical BSE disappeared from cattle populations. All told, fewer than 300 people worldwide died from vCJD related to beef consumption, most of those in the UK.

Without downplaying the tragedy of those deaths for the victims and their families, the numbers demonstrate that even with a high prevalence of classical BSE in a cattle population, and literally millions of servings of beef from BSE cows consumed over several years in the UK and elsewhere, vCJD remained quite rare.

The recent Florida case resembles an atypical BSE diagnosis in an Alabama cow in July 2017. The Alabama case, like this one, helped demonstrate the effectiveness of the U.S. surveillance system and had minimal impact on beef trade .

In 2015, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) determined that atypical BSE occurred spontaneously at a low rate in all cattle populations and would be excluded when determining BSE risk.

Atypical or sporadic BSE appears to occur spontaneously in a very small percentage of cattle, usually older animals, in contrast with classical BSE, which is associated with cattle consuming feed contaminated with transmissible prions from other ruminant sources. Prevalence of atypical BSE is not known and because of its rarity, would be difficult to quantify without massive testing. Scientists believe though, that the disease affects fewer than one in one million cattle.

This is the nation’s 6th detection of BSE according to the USDA. The first case, in 2003, was a case of classical BSE; the rest have been atypical BSE.

The BSE story provides an excellent example of science and industry working together to solve a problem and to educate the public regarding the actual risks. Perception is key, and the muted response to the recent case of atypical BSE demonstrates that the public, the media and the global food industry have learned to keep this rare disease in perspective.

Thank You and Farewell

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:11:45 GMT

With mixed feelings, the February 2020 issue is my last as I’ve announced plans to retire from my position as editor of Bovine Veterinarian.

While I anxiously welcome the time I’ll have to spend with family, hobbies, learning and volunteering, I know I will greatly miss many aspects of the work I’ve done for the past 27 years with Drovers and Bovine Veterinarian. Mostly, I’ll miss the people.

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of meeting and engaging with farmers, ranchers and veterinarians across the United States and Canada. In many cases, I’ve visited their homes or practices, met their families and toured their properties. I’ve visited with university researchers and Extension faculty, professionals from federal agencies and industry associations and representatives from allied industry. I’ve broken bread with many of you, at conference meals or even in your homes. More of you than I can list, or even count, have helped me by taking time to talk, contributing to articles and editing my messy drafts.

In virtually every case, I’ve found people involved in agriculture, and specifically those in the beef and dairy sectors, to be kind, generous, honest, thoughtful, humble and passionate about agriculture. I’ve also met a few “outliers,” but I appreciate them too – life is too short to hold grudges.

Internally, I’ve been fortunate to work with a long line of skilled, creative and passionate colleagues over my years with Drovers and Bovine Veterinarian, and I thank them for their help, their patience and their willingness to tolerate my – let’s say “unconventional” approach.

I sincerely hope my efforts have created at least some positive impact and contributed to the advancement of animal agriculture.

Nostalgia aside, I’m looking to the future more than the past. Our February issue focuses on upcoming trends, and how food-animal veterinarians will need to adapt to new technologies and evolving food-production priorities. While the challenges in the coming years will be significant, opportunities for veterinarians are even more so, as producers increasingly depend on them for guidance.

At this time, I don’t yet know who will take over as editor, but the management team at Farm Journal is evaluating several fine candidates. Farm Journal remains committed to serving animal agriculture, and recognizes the importance of veterinarians as critical influencers and change agents within the beef and dairy sectors.

Although I’m retiring, my passion for beef and dairy producers, animal health and welfare, sustainable agriculture and efficient food production remains. You’ll probably see my name on occasional articles or commentaries.

In any case, I won’t be bored. My plans are filled with trails to explore, roads to travel, fish and game to frighten, home and garden projects to complete and books to read.

Keep up the good work!

Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Need for International Standards

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:59 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Like other pathogens and agricultural pests, antibiotic-resistant bacteria do not recognize international borders. And while numerous countries move toward tighter regulations and more judicious use, inconsistencies in regulations and practices in other countries can increase the risk of multi-drug-resistant diseases spreading internationally.

Recognizing the potential for resistant pathogens developing within livestock production systems, the 181 member countries of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) have spent 10 years developing a comprehensive set of International Standards and guidelines for responsible and prudent use of antimicrobial products in animals and for the surveillance and monitoring for antimicrobial resistance.

Last week during its General Session, the OIE updated those standards while adopting some standardized definitions and language regarding antimicrobial use in livestock.

In updating its standards, the OIE lists veterinary and medical supervision of antimicrobial use in animals and humans as a high international priority. Toward that goal, they adopted definitions specifying veterinary-medical use versus non-veterinary-medical use of antimicrobials.

The OIE defines veterinary-medical use as the administration of an antimicrobial agent to an individual or a group of animals to treat, control or prevent infectious disease. The organization also adopted definitions for each category of use, similar to those employed in the United States:

Treat: Administer an antimicrobial agent to an individual or a group of animals showing clinical signs of an infectious disease;
Control: Administer an antimicrobial agent to a group of animals containing sick animals and healthy animals (presumed to be infected), to minimize or resolve clinical signs and to prevent further spread of the disease.
Prevent: Administer an antimicrobial agent to an individual or a group of animals at risk of acquiring a specific infection or in a specific situation where infectious disease is likely to occur if the drug is not administered.

The OIE defines non-veterinary-medical use as “the administration of antimicrobial agents to animals for any purpose other than to treat, control or prevent infectious disease; it includes growth promotion, defined as the administration of antimicrobial agents to animals only to increase the rate of weight gain or the efficiency of feed utilization.” The updated guidelines specify that “responsible and prudent use of antimicrobial agents does not include the use of antimicrobial agents for growth promotion in the absence of risk analysis.” The guidelines also urge prohibition of growth-promotion uses of critically important classes of antibiotics used in human medicine, including Fluoroquinolones, Colistin and third and fourth generations of Cephalosporins.

In the United States, FDA’s Guidance for Industry 213 led to voluntary removal of performance or production claims from medically important antimicrobials. However, the OIE notes that 60 of its member countries continue to use antimicrobials for growth promotion, either with direct authorization or because of a lack of regulations.

While the long-term effects of judicious use guidelines on resistance trends remain unknown, most stakeholders agree that more veterinary oversight of antimicrobial use and phase-out of growth-promotion uses should serve as a positive step. Global adoption of those standards could help prevent emergence of multi-drug-resistant pathogens that humans, wildlife or livestock could carry across borders and into a herd near you.

Global Regions Report Beef-Sustainability Progress

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:51 GMT

When the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) formed in 2012, participants quickly realized sustainability goals, practices and measurements would need to reflect regional differences in beef-production environments. Practices deemed sustainable in tropical environments could differ significantly from those in colder regions, and vice-versa. Even within a country such as the United States, production environments vary widely between regions, such as the subtropical Southeast versus the arid West.

A new report issued following the GRSB’s third Global Conference on Sustainable Beef, held in Ireland in early October, reflects those regional differences and reports on progress based on regional goals and measurements. The conference attracted participants from more than 20 countries, and the report includes descriptions of initiatives and progress from regional roundtables including the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Columbia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Some U.S. beef producers remain skeptical about the GRSB, the affiliated U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB) and the sustainability issue overall. Much of that skepticism stems from differences in the ways various groups and individuals perceive and define “sustainability” in agriculture. Some activist factions view sustainability strictly in terms of environmental conservation, and favor production practices of our grandparents’ era. Fortunately, the GRSB recognizes that sustainability requires social responsibility and economic viability along with environmental soundness.

The group overall understands that modern technologies that improve production efficiencies can reduce beef’s environmental “footprint” while also meeting society’s expectations and, importantly, providing opportunities for producer profits and economic viability. They’ve also adopted a strategy of measuring and tracking improvement, using metrics appropriate to individual regions, rather than setting universal goals or unrealistic benchmarks.

Some producers also worry that the membership list includes environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation and World Wildlife Fund. Those members though, have worked constructively alongside livestock organizations such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. The GRSB membership list also includes companies that supply critical inputs, such as Merck Animal Health, Elanco, Dow, Bayer Animal Health and Zoetis. The list also includes heavy hitters among your customers, such as McDonald’s, JBS, Cargill, Costco and others.

All those organizations face public pressures to demonstrate their contributions to sustainable supply chains. That trend won’t change. In 2018, the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef launched its Certified Sustainable Beef Framework, which will enable a certification process for beef marketed as sustainable. Before long, we could see labels for beef “produced through verified sustainable supply chains” alongside “natural,” “organic” or “raised without hormones or antibiotics.”

You might not like it, but now is a good time to begin documenting sustainable practices and establishing measurable benchmarks to demonstrate improvement.

Read the full 2018 GRSB Sustainability Report .

Re-imagine the Research Poster

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:10:35 GMT

Veterinarians and animal scientists likely attend at least one or two poster sessions each year during scientific conferences, but might not learn as much as they could. The concept makes sense – researchers develop summaries of studies, which they present on poster boards, as a means of disseminating their results and stimulating discussion among their peers. But, when researchers present comprehensive summaries, like a scaled-down research report with a few graphics, each poster takes considerable time to read and the session, with dozens or even hundreds of posters, becomes overwhelming to attendees.

Mike Morrison, a doctoral student in psychology at Michigan State University, recognized that the standard poster format limits the ability of attendees to glean useful information from poster sessions. Valuable research, he believes, might not achieve its potential contribution because of inefficient presentation at poster sessions.

Morrison decided to take a fresh look at poster formats, emphasizing simplicity, clear graphics, a succinct summary sentence and a means to easily access the full report if desired.

His design, featured recently on National Public Radio , places a summary sentence of the study’s key finding in large type in the center of the poster. On either side, the redesigned poster includes a short description of the study’s goals, methods and results. A large QR code below the summary statement allows interested readers to easily access the full research report using their mobile devices.

Morrison also created an animated video illustrating the benefits of his design, and provides templates for researchers interested in creating posters based on the concept. He believes the design will allow more efficient dialog and dissemination of ideas during research poster sessions, resulting in more rapid advancement of scientific innovations.

According to news reports, the design has received mostly positive reviews, and growing numbers of researchers have begun using the concept in their poster presentations.

Learn more from National Public Radio .

For more on research methods and reporting, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Leverage Resources in Ag Research

13 Ways to Tell Good Research from Bad

Nobel Prize Winners Call for Greater Openness in Animal Research

Biggest Dietary Problem? Things We Don’t Eat

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 02:09:43 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Hardly a day goes by without someone telling us about the foods we shouldn’t eat, fueling perceptions that consumption of “bad” foods damages our health. However, findings in a new report from a global consortium of researchers published in the medical journal The Lancet indicate that for the most part, consumers in the United States and worldwide put themselves at a greater risk of nutrition-related health problems based on the foods they neglect to eat, rather than the foods they eat.

The one exception, in the United States and elsewhere, is sodium – we generally eat too much of that.

For the United States, the report rates the following at the top of the list of dietary risks linked to death:

Low consumption of whole grains.
Low consumption of nuts and seeds.
High consumption of sodium.
Low consumption of fruits.
Low consumption of vegetables.

High consumption of red meats ranks last, at number 15 on the list of risks. Most of the global rankings for red meats are similar to that in the United States, as are most of the rankings for other dietary components. One exception is high consumption of processed meats, which ranks relatively high in the United States at number 7 on the list, but near the bottom in most other heavily populated regions.

The researchers do note that global intake of red meat was 18% greater than optimal. While we probably could question the recommended “optimal” intake, the report indicates most people should first prioritize eating more whole grains, seeds, nuts and fruits, and less sodium.

According to the report, in 2017, 11 million deaths and 255 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were attributable to dietary risk factors. High intake of sodium accounted for 3 million deaths and 70 million DALYs, while low intake of whole grains accounted for 3 million deaths and 82 million DALYs and low intake of fruits contributed to 2 million deaths and 65 million DALYs.

The study is part of the yearly Global Burden of Disease report, with contributions from a consortium of thousands of researchers tracking premature death and disability from more than 350 diseases and injuries in 195 countries. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation helped fund the dietary study.

See the full report from The Lancet .

For more on meat’s role in healthy diets, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Less Beef, More Beans Equals Smelly Report

Meat of the Matter: Chew on This, Veggies